Page images

painted and whitened all the internal parts of the said premises where usually painted and whitewashed. Now we do hereby require you to remedy the said breaches of covenant, and lo make fair and reasonable compensation for the said breaches of covenant. And we hereby give you notice that, unless within one month or a reasonable time thereafter you remedy the said breaches, and make reasonable compensation in money for the said breaches, we will commence an action. . . .” The notice was not complied with, and in October, 1893, the house was entirely demolished by the London County Council as being a dangerous structure. At the time of the granting of the lease the premises were over 200 years old, and very dilapidated. This was a claim in an action for the administration of Thomas Serle‘s estate by the representatives of the lessor asking for liberty to establish their claim to damages for dilapidations and breach of covenant to repair upon the estate of the deceased, and for possession of the premises on forfeiture for breach of covenant. »

Ksuswrcu, J ., said that as regards the first part of the notice it was not so distinct as to direct the attention of the lessee to the particular things of which the landlord complained, and that it was therefore bad as offending against the rules laid down by North, J ., in Fletcher v. Nokes, (1897, 1 Ch. 271), and by Collins, L.J., infonton v. Barnett (1898, 1 Q. B. 276). The second and third parts of the notice were suificiently specific, but as the first part was bad they could not save the notice. It was also said that the lease gave three months in which to do repairs whereas the notice required them to be done in one; that was not an objection of moment, for it did not affect the statutory right of the lessee to have a reasonable time in which to do the repairs. If the notice were otherwise good it would be suflicient. On the authority of the above-mentioned cases his lordship held that the notice was bad and that the applicant was not therefore entitled to possession. With regard to the question whether the breach of the covenant gave a right to bring an action for damages, it was said that this was only a claim in an administration action and that while an action was maintainable, a. claim like this for merely nominal damages could not be sustained. But the contention that the damages were merely nominal could not be supported. It was said that the house was so dilapidated that it could not be repaired. That was not a sufficient answer. The lessee was bound to repair, and it was not contended that he had. But it was said this was not a continuing breach because the house had been pulled down. His lordship was, however, of opinion that, notwithstanding the house had been pulled down, the breach was a continuing one, and that the lessee was therefore liable in damages and allowed the applicant to prove for damages caused by the breaches of the covenant up to the time when the premises were pulled down.—Cor:vssr., Warrington, Q.C., and Turrill; Rmshaw, Q.C., and IV. L. Richards. Soucrroas, E. A. J. Breed; Anning 4' Ca.

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

Bronsu, J ., in the course of his considered judgment, said during the currency of the polic The Elmjield was carrying a cargo of cotton seed on a voyage from Alexandria to London. On the 20th of December, 1896, she arrived in the Thames, when The Dsrwent ran into her and caused such serious damage to her hull below the water-line that it became necessary to run her ashore. Some of her cargo was removed in lighters, and on the 5th of January, 1897, she was towed to Millwall Dock, where it was intended that the remainder of her cargo should be discharged. It proved, however, that by the action of the water which had got into the ship in consequence of the accident the cargo had become rotten and offensive, and the sanitary authority ordered the shipowner to abate the nuisance and remove the cotton seed. The owners of the carge meanwhile had given notice of abandonment to the underwriters, and neither they nor their underwriters would pay freight or take delivery, alleging, as was not disputed, that the cotton seed had become worthless. The plaintiffs under these circumstances made a contract with a firm lo discharge the offensive carge and spread it as manure on land ashort distance away, at a charge of 5s. per ton. The major part of the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant and his re-insurers was admitted and paid, but the defendant denied liability for two items, the subject of this action—namely: (l) the charges incurred in dealing with the cargo after the date of the collision and before the contract for the disposal of the cargo; and (2) the cost of discharging and getting rid of the residue of the cotton seed as manure; which items together amounted to £1,042. The question was-whether the defendant and his co-underwiters were under any liability to recoup the plaintiffs any, and, if so, what part of this expenditure. Mr. Joseph Walton contended for the plaintiffs that the expenditure in question was recoverable as having been caused by

[ocr errors]

perils, which had come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the ship within the meaning of the policy. The learned judge thought it was not enough for the shipowner to say: “ The perils of the sea have caused loss to me, and you must indemnify me.” He must go further, and shew that they had caused the loss of, or damage to, his ship. In his opinion the cost of dealing with and unloading and disposing of the cargo, or, as Mr. \Valton called it, the filthy mass into which the cargo had been changed, was not a loss which had happened to the thing insured by any of the perils insured against. Sea perils or no sea perils, the shipowner had to empty his ship if he intended to use her again, and therefore the cost of doing it could not be said to be rendered necessary by reason of the perils insured against, it had to be incurred any way, and the fact that in the one case the shipowner would, by discharging become entitled to his freight, whereas in the other case he could not get his freight, seemed to the learned judge not to concern the underwriters on ship at all ; and if he was not entitled to the cost of discharging_it followed, afartiori, that he was not entitled to the costs of dealing with or disposing of the cargo. In conclusion, he held as a fact that the plaintiffs had been fully paid by l the underwriters for all that could properly be called the costs of repairing. They had, no doubt, incurred further consequential loss, but it was a loss for which the defendant was not in any way liable. Judgment would, therefore, be with the defendant with costs.-Couxssr., Joseph Walton, Q.C., and Lewis Noad ; C'arve1', Q,.C., and T. E. Scmfton. Soucrrons, W. A. Urump §- Son ,- Waltom, Johnson, Babb, 5- Whatton.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Case stated by the Recorder of Leeds. The defendant was tried at the Leeds Quarter Sessions on an indictment_under the Betting Act, 1853, charging him with having opened, kpgt, and used a certain place—-to wit, an archway in Princess-street, Le s—for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto on certain events and contingencies of and relating to a horse-race. The archway was a private thoroughfare, the

roperty of certain mill-owners, and was the only means of access from l[)’rincess-street into a yard at the back of the mills, containing dwellinghouses, stables, and workshops, which were also their property. Humphrey had no right in the archway, nor had anyone except for the purpose of passing through the same into the yard and the houses, &c., therein. The archway was 29ft. Qin. long by 10ft. llin. wide and 12ft. high. It was proved that the defendant had been present in the archway on the days in question, and had made bets with from thirteen to forty persons who had resorted thereto, receiving money, giving betting tickets, &c. The recorder directed the jury that the archway was a place within the statute, and that if they believed that Humphrey had on the days specified in the indictment used it for the purpose of betting they ought to find him guilty. The jury convicted the defendant and the recorder fined him £20.

[ocr errors]

Lord Russsm. or Krnnowsx, C.J., said that the argument for the appellant mainly rested on the decision of the case of Powell v. Kvmplon Pork Racecourse (Jo. (1897, 2 Q. B. 242). Without expressing any opinion whether that was an authority which the present court would be bound to follow, it was clear that the opinions of the learned judges of appeal therein must be treated with deference and respect. The question then arose, \Vas that case one which should oblige this court to say that no offence against the statute had been committed? It would be matter for thc greatest regret if that were taken to be the effect of the Kemplon Park vase. In the opinion of the learned judge it had no such operation at all. It was necessary to state the facts of that case in order to explain this view. In that case betting took place on a racecourse, to which multitudes resorted for purposes of sport. On that racecourse was an enclosure of large area which afforded opportunities of seeing the races, and in which there were constructions affording shelter from weather. Anyone who chose to pay the admission price was allowed to enter. The numbers varied. Some went there as bookmakers, others to “ back their fancy,” others merely to see the races. There was no appropriation of any distinct part of that large enclosure for the purpose of betting therein. The mere statement of those facts marked the difference between that case and the present. In this case there was a gateway open to the street at one end and a courtyard at the other. It; dimensions were about 29ft. by 10ft. The defendant habitually resorted to it, and “ hold the bank against all comers," for the purpose of betting of the worst class. It was betting away from the racecourse, and had no reference to sport. In that gateway he lay in wait—in wait for the express purpose of carrying on the business of betting with those who would bet with him. It had been admitted that this might be properly described as a place within the Act. It was obvious that it was so, and was capable structurally of being regarded as a place. \Vas it then used as a betting place? The answer to that was that the defendant habitually attended there alone as a bettor against all comers. There was therefore in existence everything to create the offence charged—both the place and the purpose. The conviction was therefore properly arrived at. He desired to add that it was not to the public advantage that there should be the ambiguity which existed as to the law on this matter. It was impossible to reconcile all the varying authorities. The cases that from time to time were brought up showed that there was urgent need for legislation on the subject, and that speedily all ambiguity should be removed.

HA\\'KlNS, J ., concurred in everything that the Lord Chief Justice had


said in respect of the case before the court. It was in accordance with


the decision in Hawks v. Dunn (1897, 1 Q,. B. 579) and Beg. v. Preedy (17 Cox C. C. 433). As to Powell v. Ifemplon Park, the circumstances of that case were very peculiar, and, while treating the decision with all respect; no word of his must be taken as expressing approval of it. He agreed that legislation ought to take place, and was of opinion that some mode of arriving at a knowledge of the necessary facts ought to precede legislation. The present ambiguity was unfortunate and unseemly.

\Vii.i.s, J ., said the general principle laid down in the ]i'¢-mpfon Park case was that one test for decision of cases of this kind was the combination of circumstances relating to the characteristics of the spot, and the other test was the user of the spot. That as a general proposition could not be denied. Both elements of the offence were present in this case. The archway had every physical characteristic which was required to make it fall within the Act. The user was identical with that which it would have been if the place had been boxed in and placarded up like any oflicc. How could it, then, be said that there was no evidence for ii. conviction P Speaking of the Kr-mpton Park /.-are, of course, that case being a decision of the Court of Appeal, it was entitled to the highest respect, and he was not prepared to say that this court might not be bound by it; but he much regretted the circumstances of the manner under which it came before the courts. It was an action brought for a purpose. Both parties to it were desirous to get rid of Hawke v. Dunn. Both parties agreed to a statement that the particular kind of betting carried on on the spot had existed since the beginning of the century. That statement made it dificult to see how such betting could come within tho Act-—for the Act passed in 1843 recited that “a kind of gaming has of late sprung up.”

t could not, it was true, be said that the judgment was based on that statement, but it was a material fact, possibly true, but collusively stated. It was very unfortunate that such a case should have come before the Court of Appeal to be the leading case. In the view of the learned judge there was urgent nced for legislation. It was scarcely short of a scandal to have the leading authority on the subject obtained under the circumstances pointed out.

Kn_ivxsni',_J., concurred. He thought the present decision in no way confiicted_with the Kempton Park rare. It was therefore unnecessary to say anything more about it. lle referred to the case of Liddsll v. Lofthouu (1896, Q. B. 295) as being undistinguishable from the present. He agreed in the importance of legislation on the subject, because questions on there points wero continually being raised before the inferior courts all over the kingdom.

Brnnar, J ., concurred with the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice. Conviction aflirmed.—-Couivsn, Jouph Walton, Q.C., and G. J. Banlres ,Arqmtli, Q.C., and U. Felix Palmer‘. Somorroiis, Waddy Q Kelsey, for H. Clnld, Leeds; Foyer Q Ilordein.

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

This was an appeal from a decision of Wright, J. (sitting as an additional. judge of the Chancery Division), who had made an order directing J. R. Heslreth to account to the Sale Hotel and Botanical Gardens Co. (Limited) for certain moneys received by him.

Tm; Coviir (LINDLBY, M.R., and Rioiiir and Vsuousn WILLIAMS, L.JJ.) allowed the appeal.

LINDLBY, lil.R., in the course of his judgment, said: The company, it seems to me, never had a right to call upon Mr. Hesketh to account for that money. I am not pre(pared to put a narrow construction on section 10 of the Companies (Win ing-up) Act, 1890, which enacts that “where, in the course of the winding up of a company under the Companies Acts it appears that any person who has taken part in the formation or promotion of the company . . . has misapplied or retained, or become liable or accountable for any moneys or property of the company,” the co_urt may “ compel him to repay any moneys or restore any property so

misapplied, . . . or to contribute such sums of money to the assets of the company by way of compensation in respect of such mlsapplicatiou, retainer, . . . as tho court thinks j ust.” I cannot help thinking that

any money which ought to be treated, whether on legal or on equitable grounds, as received by any promoter to the use of the company, falls within that discretion. I think the words “moneys or property of the company" are used in a popular iensc. This is not a section which is concerned with drawing accurate lines between ownership and nonownership; and I think it would be a very narrow construction of this part of the section to confine its operation to moneys which were the property of the company before they reached the pocket of the man whom it is sought to make accountable for them. But putting on those words the wider construction which I think one ought to put upon them, I look in vain for any obligation on Ilesketh's part to hand over this money to the com an

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[Reported by R. C. Micniizis, Barrister-at-Lam]

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

In this case the Statutory Committee of the Incorporated Law Society reported that the respondent \Villiam Leonard Butler, who was admitted a solicitor in April, 1891, and subsequently carried on business as Sedgwick & Butler at Stratford, received instructions to act in several matters for the complainant. The charges against him were that he hsrl induced the complainant on false representations to pledge the lease of her house for a loan of £35 at an exorbitant rate of interest, and that he used the greater part of the money so obtained for his own purposes, being himself at the time in financial dillicultics ; that during part of the time the respondent was acting as solicitor for the complainant he was not in possession of a certificate entitling him to practise as a solicitor. Counsel for the solicitor denied that his client had misappropriated any of the money he had received on behalf of the complainant. Hehad done a great deal of work for her and had not been paid anything on account of his bill of costs. His financial difficnlties arose from the fact that he had been the victim of another person, who was an unscrupulous man, and that the latter had openly stated his intention to ruin him. The charge of having acted without having renewed his certificate for a short time was resjudioota. It had formed a charge in another complaint that had been brought against him, and the committee then found that the circumstances under which he omitted to take out his certificate for this period were such as not to amount to professional misconduct. [, J .

—-You need not argue that point, the other charges are those that you have to meet.]

THE Cocar (DAY and Bnvca, JJ.) held that the case shewed that the solicitor had been guilty of grave misconduct, and ordered that the name of William Leonard Butler should be struck off the l'0llB.—COI.'NSBL, I. W. Hallams; Harold Hardy. SOLICITOR, E. W. Williamson.

[Reported by EISKINE Rain, Barrister-at-I4w.]


Mailers Relating to Professional Conduct and Etiquelle.—The attention of the Council has during the past year been drawn to various matters relating to professional conduct and etiquette, and the Council has _taken such steps in reference thereto as upon consideration appeared advisable. The following are among such matters :

(I.) Retainer .Rule.i.—Numerous applications have been made to the General Council of the Bar during the past two years with regard_ to the meaning and enforcement of rules 14 and 20 of the rules regulating the practice as to retainers of counsel, prepared by the bar committee, and approved by the Attorney-General and the Incorporated Law Society in 1892. Rule 14 is as follows: “A counsel who has been specllllli retained is entitled to the delivery of_a brief on every occasion to which the special retainer applies; provided always: _ A special retainer does not entitle a Queen's Counsel to_ th_e delivery of a brief on occasions when it is usual to instruct junior counsel only. Whfiffi more than one junior counsel has been retained, only one of s_uch junior counsel is entitled to the delivery of a brief on occasions when it is usual to instruct one junior counsel alone.” Rule 20 is as follows: “ Counsel who has drawn pleadings or advised, or accepted a brief, during the progress of an action on behalf of any p8_!i'Y shall not accept aretainer or brief from any other party without gi\'1118 the party for whom he has drawn pleadings or adv_is_ed, or on_wh_0s8 beha f he has accepted a briof, the opportunity of retaining or_delivering a brief to him, but such counsel is entitled to ii brief at the trial, and on any interlocutory application where counsel is engaged, unless exp_i'cBB notice to the contrary shall have been given him with the instructions to draw such pleadings or advise, or at the time cf_the delivery o_f sii-‘>11 brief. Provided always such counsel shall not be entitled to ii brief in any case where he is unable or unwilling to accept th_e same without receiving ii special fee.” The Council having fully considered the matter, hi": resolved: (1) That the said rules 14 and 2_0 be enforced by the l0llO‘Illl]11o practice: “ When ii brief is offered or delivered any counsel, and_ 9 finds that another counsel has become entitled to a brief within the moauuifl of rule 14 or 20, and has not been briefed, such first-named counsel ought where practicable to ascertain from the solicitor offering or_deliveriug such brief whether there is any sufficient explanation why a brief has not been offered or delivered to such other counsel, and unless a satésfuflfiilg explanation is given ought to refuse to return the brief.'_ (-) 5 5 such practice be henceforth considered a _1fule of the 1JI'0fe.l.9'lD7l. _ f

(lI.) Ra Clerks to Public Bodies Pracllstfly a_t the Bar.7I‘he attention 0“ the Council having been called to the following resolutiomof the Councal passed in October, 1896, and published in _the Councils last anniilm statement, and adopted by the gonerahmecting of the bar on thew day of May, 1897, viz.: “That a barrister holding the otlice of “:3 ,clerk, clerk to guardians, or any similar public body, Ought 11°l


practise at the bar.” The Council have further resolved as follows:

‘ That, in their opinion, a barrister would be justified in refusing to hold a brief with anyone who tranrgressed the above resolution, and that barristers ought not to hold briefs with members of the profession who wilfully transgress established rules of the profession.” The Council are glad to notice that, as suggested in the last annual statement, the consilidated regulations of the four Inns of Court have been amended in accordance with the Council's suggestion. _ The declaration to_be made by a student before call to the bar now contains a pl‘0Vl3lOl1 that if called to the bar he will not be or act as a town clerk, a clerk to a town clerk, a clerk to aboard of guardians or overseers, or a clerk in the office of a county council, or hold any similar olllco so long and while he is in practice as a barrister.

(IIL) Re a Barrister Holding the Appointment of Coroner and Practising at tIu_ Bar.—The ruling of the Council has been asked on the following points : (1) Is there any rule or custom of the bar to prevent a member of a circuit who holds an appointment as coroner in a county included in that circuit lpractising generally on th8ii&Cll’?Cl1li£;1'.li-, at assizes,1quartsr sessions po ice courts county courts c. ) f yes wou d such prohibition apply to the entire circuit, or only to such part of it as is included in the coroner's jurisdiction? _ (3) If -the answer to (l) be “no,” would the Council consider it an unprofessional or undesirable thing for a barrister who was a coroner to continue to practise on a circuit which included his coroner's district? The Council have replied: (1) “That they know of no rule of tho profession to prevent a barrister holding such a position from so practising though they are unable to say that such a course might not offend against circuit rules. (2) That they would not consider it an unprofessional or undesirable thing for a barrister holding such a position to so practise so long as he does not appear as counsel in cases connected with or arising cut of matters with which ho has dealt as coroner.”

[blocks in formation]

(VI.) Disputes as to Fees, Q-c., Inlwcm Barristers and Silk-ilora.—At the suggestion of the Incorporated Law Society, the Chairman of the Council has during tho past year undertaken, in cozij unclion wiih the President of the society, the settlement of various differences which have arisen between members of the two branches of the profession. Before the matter is entertained the parties in dispute are required to sign the following memorandum : “ We, the undersigned, hereby testify our consent to leave the matters in dispute between us to be settled by the Chairman of the General Council of the Bar, or some member of that Council to be named by him, and the President of the Incorporated Law Society, or some member of the Council of that society to be named by him, as they think fit, and to abide by their decision.” It is believed that this method of settlement has been of service to the parties.

The Esiablishmmt I f Cowity Criminal Courts aml the Extension of Jurisdiction of Quarter S:.i.iian|.-—As mentioned in the last annual statement, the consideration of these most important questions was referred by thc Council to the Standing Committee on Business and Procedure for consideration and report. The committee, in exercise of their power to invite any member of the bar to servo thereon, invited Mr. Dickens, Q.C., and hlr. Scott Fox so to serve. Sir Harry Poland was good enough to attend before the committee, who thus had the advantage of hearing his views on the matter at first hand. The committee sat for several months, during which they made extensive enquiries into the present system, and collected a large amount of valuable information, which was comprised in a lengthy report ultimately presented to the Council. The Council having, on several occasions, considered the matter, on the 12th of July resolved as follows: (1) “ That no extension of the jurisdiction of quarter sessions as at present constituted is advisable.” (2) “ That the institution of a county criminal court for each county on the lines suggested by Sir Harry Poland is desirable.”

The Conduct of Uiril Biuineas in the Queen’: Bench Division of the High Court of Ju.stic¢.—After quoting the reports already published, the Council ray :

The Council understand that the Lord Chancellor is giving the matters referred to in the above reports his careful consideration.

Tarn llamrgemmt Act, 1880 (43 & 4-1 Vict. 0. 19).—Section 57 (9).— App¢ah.—-“ No barrister, solicitor, attorney, or any person practising the law shall be allowed to plead before the said commissioners on such appeal for the appellant or officers either viva ooce or by writing." It having been represented to the Council that complicated and difficult questions arise before the commissioners involving large sums of money, and that the taxpayer is precluded by the above section from any professional assistance, whereas the Revenue Authorities are represented by trained experts, The Council have resolved as follows : " That steps should be taken to enable persons appealing to the commissioners under the above section of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, to be represented by counsel on such appeals, if they should so desire.”



Re Lay Adi-ovate; .»1ppm1'i'ng upon Loozl Inquir€a.s.—'I‘he council learn that instances have occurred of persons appearing as advocates for parties on local inquiries who are neither barristers nor solicitors nor in any way connected with such parties. Thinking such a practice objectionable alike inthe interest of the public and the profession, they have addressed a communication to the Incorporated Law Society with the object of ascertaining the views of the society upon the matter, and considering whether joint representations thereon should be made on behalf of the Council and this society to the departments under whose authority such inquiries are he d.

Ra Tha Long Vacation ——At the last annual meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, held on the 9th of July, 1897, the following resolution was passed: "That in the opinion of this society the duration of the Long Vacation should be reduced to eight weeks—first Monday in August to last Saturday in September.” This resolution having been again approved at the annual provincial meeting, held at Sheflleld on the 6th of Uctober, 1897, was in the following December adopted by the Council of the society. The General Council of the Bar having been asked by the Council of the society to express their opinion on the subject, resolved as follows: “That it is not desirable that the proposal of the Incorporated Law Society to alter the Long Vacation by making it extend from the first liiginday in August to the last Saturday in September be carried into e act.”

Re The Dqfenca of Prisoner: by C'oun.sel.—In consequence of a resolution moved before the Council to the effect that “it is desirable that every prisoner should be defended by counsel,” the Council have appointed the following committee to consider and report generally upon the question of the defence of prisoners by counsel: Mr. Crackanthorpe, Q.C., Mr. Milvain, Q.C., Mr. Alderson Foote, Q.C., Hon. A. Lyttelton, M.P., Mr. Clavell Salter, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Guy Stephenson. The committee have already communicated with the oflicial representatives of several British Colonies with a view to ascertaining what the practice is there.

Ra The Appointment of J:ul_qe.~i.-—’l‘ho Council have resolved as follows: “ That in the opinion of this Council persons occupying subordinate judicial positions should not, save under very exceptional circumstances, be appointed to be justices of the High Court.”

Ra The Annual General Meeting.-The Council have during the course of the year adopted the following resolutions : (1) “ That it is desirable that a general meeting of the Bar should be held at least once a year for the discussion of subjects of interest to the profession ; ” and (2) “ That it is desirable that any member of the Bar should be at liberty to bring forward for discussion at the annual general meeting any resolution of which he has given notice pursuant to regulation 28, provided that in the opinion of the executive committee such resolution is ii matter of general interest to the bar." The second of such resolutions would probably involve the amendment of the Council's regulations.

Rs T/I6 Annual Election.-—Th6 Council have appointed a committee to consider tho working of the rules relating to the election of the Council, and to report whether they can advantageously be altered or amended.


Mr. Hsxnv GRIHBLE, solicitor, rcnior partner in the firm of Messrs. Gribble, Gouldsmith, & Gribble, of Bristol, died on the 5th inst. atthe age of seventy-six years. He had for some time suffered from severe illness, which was aggravated by grief caus(d by the death of one of his sons, Mr. E. L. Gribble, in January of last year. He was admitted in 1844, and had been in practice for more than half a century. his firm consisting of himself, Mr. Samuel S. Gouldsmith, and Mr. H. E. Gribble. Mr. Gribble’s funeral took place at Westbury-on-Trym, and was largely attended. The first part of the service was held at Emmanuel Church, Clifton.

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

attempting to introduce. The justice looked first annoyed and then indignant at these frequent interruptions. Finally he could contain himself no longer, and roared out: “\Vhat kind of a lawyer are you, anyway ?" “I am a patent lawyer,” replied the attorney with dignity. "Well,” retortcd the justice scornfully, “when the patent expires you will have a hard time getting it renewed. Go on with the case l ”

The Albany Law Journal prints the text of a Bill which has just become law, providing for the registration of attorneys and counsellors-at-law in the State cf New York, which comes into effect on the 1st of September next, and provides that on and after the lst of January, 1899, it shall be unlawful for any person to practise law in that State without having registered. As there are in the State probably between fourteen and fifteen thousand attorneys, the time allowed is none too long. There are, says the Journal, hundreds of persons-—the largest number, of course, in the city of New York—who are and have been for years practising law without having been admiltcd.

Mr. W. A. Carson, the Local Government Board auditor, has, says the Times, surcharged the members of the Ampthill Urban District Council with fees paid to e. water-diviiier, on the ground that the diviner had made pretence to a power within the meaning of the decision in the (‘nee Reg. v. Maria Giles (34 L. J. M. G. 54), in which it was held that “ The pretence of apower, either physical, moral, or supernatural, and obtaining money by the false assertion of such a power, whatever it may be, is an indictable offence under the letter of the statute and within the mischief intended to be prevented by it.” The consideration in the agreement for the water-divinei~'s employment was therefore an illegal one, and the agreement for such employment void in law.

The forty-fifth report of the Charity Commissioners for 1897, which has been recently issued, shows that during the year the number of orders made was 4,119 (as against 3,629 in 1896, 3,079 in 1895, 3,130 in 1894, and 3,113 in 1893), and of these 715 were orders for the appointment or removal of trustees, for the establishment of schemes for the regulation of charities, or for vesting their real estate. The total sum of stocks and investments held by the olilcial trustees of charitable funds on the 31st ot December, 1897, amounted to £l8,774,270, divided into 19,722 separate accounts. This sum is irrespective ot certain securities expressed in terms of foreign currencies, and also of certain other securities. During the year sums of stock amounting in the aggregate to £269,535 were sold or transferred by the oflicial trustees.

Mr. Preston, writing to the Times, says that a Parliamentary return, rccently issued, gives some interesting facts and figures as to funds in Chancery. It appears that the receipts and transfers into the Supreme Court of Judicature (England) during the year ended the 28th of February, 1897, were £1-1,250,992 4s. 3d. This sum, added to the balance in hand on the 1st of March, 1896, makes a total of £73,983,76O 12s. 10d. After payments out of court to successful claimants and others, amounting to £l5,67l,768 5s. 4d., there remained in hand, in cash and securities, on the 28th ot February, 1897, the largo balance of £58,311,992 7s. 6d., exclusive of several items under the head of “Foreign Currencies." The number of suitors’ accounts is 44,725, and, according to the oflicial list of dormint funds, some 5,000 rel rte to accounts undealt with since 1877.

Mr. F. A. Stringer, writing to the Times, says: “In the course of an investigation for the purpose of an cncyclopacdia article, I have come across some facts which I trust may induce our legislators to relieve the millions of witnesses who are sworn every year from the medically-certified risk involved in taking the oath in the ordinary established form. The first is that, although the practice of requiring an oath in support of testimony has prevailed in this country for at least a thousand years, probably longer, the practice of swearing by kissing the Bible or Testament is not more than 150 years old. It is certain that at the end of the seventeenth century the ordinary established method was for the witness to swear by placing his hand on the Bible. So far as I am aware, no record exists prior to the middle of the eighteenth century to shew that the Bible was kissed by the witness in swearing. The second important fact is that, though in all other respects the form of oath has remained practically the same for centuries throughout Christendom, the practice of ‘kissing the Book’ is peculiar to England, and does not exist, and never has existed, in any other country.”

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



[ocr errors]

sramo ASSIZES, 1898. Nonrnsax. l N. E.\ C ~ - D | Bruce, J. Ch ommission ays. ) mgham’ ‘L impel], J, Monday, April 1S Manchester2 ...... .' (Civil and Criminal) I Monday, May 2 ............. ]_l.'iiveEpglol 2 ...................._ v an imina) Friday, ,, G ...... Leeds ...... . C . . ,, ' THE PROPERTY MART.


April 19.—Mcssrs. Waironn 8: Drxoxs, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Propertiesiu

the West End of London, let on repairing leases to tenants of old standing, r slusing £556 per annum; Licensed Corner Premises near Regent-street, let on lmsiab £100 per annum - Freehold Ground-rent of £1201’):-r annum, secured u on Non. 1 to 2*", Bolton Studios, South Kensington, with reversion in 66 years; Freehold Ground-rents r-f £70 per annum, secured upon property in Holborn with reversion in 56 years; Freeho d D_welling-house near to Tottenham Courbroad, let and producing £106 per annum, with Workshop let at £16. Solicitors, Messrs. Dixon, Weld, 8: Dixons, London. (See advertisements, April 2, p. 5.)

April 19.—Messrs. Hnaizriw, Sex, & Daw, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Residence in

Streatham, containing 8 bed and 3 reception rooms, stabling, greenhouses, &c., in all kboult 1 acre) Solicitors, Messrs. Wellborne & Son, London. (See advertiseinent, pri 2, p. 4.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ground-rent £12 olicitors, Messrs. Raise, Trustram, & Co., London. (See advertisements, April 2, p. 5.)

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

WINDING UP NOTICES. London Gautte.—FainAY, April 8. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. Luurln [I Cinironr.

Caosrs Psrsxr N ur Srsoicsrr, Liin'rsi)—Creditors_ are required, on or before _May 9 to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their _debts or claims, to Samuel William Hutton, 99, Gresham st. Green & Williams, Nottuighani, solors

B. Monswooo & Co, Liiii'r:o—By an order made by Wrigaht, J ., dated March 23, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company e continued. Paterson, Finsbury circus, solors to etners _ _

Bxousii Au'ro>iomur HPOBBILIBB CARRIAGE SYNDICATE, l’.iiii'riro—Credito_rs are required, on or before May 23, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars oi their debts or claims to Percy Hulburd, 151, Leadenhall st. Dixon & Co, Lancaster place, Strand, solors for Liquidator _ _ _

L1Cl.\'SBD Tasnas Paorncronxra, Liiiirsn--Petn f_or winding up, presented April _ 8, directed to be heard on April 20. Bull, Clement’s inn, Strand, so 0r_ for petner. Notice gt appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of

pril 19 _

Losuos DRAPEEY STORES, Liiri'ri=:i>——Creditors are regluired, on or before May 6, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of eir debts or_ claims, to Mr Alfred Blow, 28, King st, Cheapside. Warner & Co, Great Winchester st, solors for

'qui tors _ _

Bronx: & Co, Li>u'rEi)—Patn for winding 11%), presented April »1, directed to be _henrd on April 20. Ford 6: Co, Bloomsbury sq, so ors for petners. Notice of alppesring must reach the above-named not later than 6 o’clock in the afternoon of Apri 19

S scorn Arsr mas’ IXC.\N1)l'lflClZN'1‘ Bnaar. Co, Liiii-ri=:i>—Creditors are required, on or before Ma 20, to send their names and addresses, and the Rtarticulars of their debts or claim-, to gdward Hayes and William Henry Gillett, 41, ooigate st. Francis & Johnson, Austinfi-iars, solors for li uidators

Sravms 8: Son (C.\anii=F), I.uiirnn—Creditors are required, on or before Ma; 13, to send their names and addresses, with particulars of their debts or claims, to ohn Edwin Gunn, Weatgate chmbrs, Westgate st, Cardiff. Cousins & Co, Cardiff, solors for li iiidator

Wcirrsonx & Bawiciii-:, L1I1lTED—P:f-11 for winding up, presented April 5, directed to be heard on April 20. Dowson & Co, Surrey st, Victoria Embankment, agents for Gibbons 8: Ark e, Liverplool, solors to petners. Notice of alppearing must reach the above-named not later t an 6 o’clock in the afternoon of Apr“ 19

Consrr Piiuirisa or Lsxcssrsa.

Faiscis Moa-rox & Co, Liiii-rsn——Petii for winding up, presented March lo, directed to be heard A ril 25, before Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy, St George’s Hall, Liverpool. Yates & Co, 1,PVictoria st, Liverpool, solor to petner. Notice of appearing must reach the nhovenamed not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of April 23

FRIENDLY SOCIETY DISSOLVED. Uxirsn Soxs or Hsniiosr, Britannia Theatre Tavern, High st, Horton. March 30

London Gazme.—Tvasnsr, April 12. JOINT STOCK COMPANIIB. Lnmurn II CBAROIBY.

Araicsxr INDIA Runiisa. Miiuoosinr, ssn Dsvsaornsrr Co, Liinriin——Petn for winding lip, presented April 7, directed to be heard before the Court sitting in Bankruptcy bltlgfi, Carey st, April 20. Halse & Co, 61, Cheapside, solors for petners. Notice of gppglflfihg must reach the above-named not later than 6 o‘clock in the afternoon of

p ' 18

Bass 8: Fuivnsaa Goto Miiuso Co. Luiii-so—Petn for winding up, presented April 1. directed to he heard April 20. Francis Miller 6: Steele, St Stephen's chmbrs, Telegraph st, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of April 19

Msraoronirsu sxo Paoviscui. Sroaas, Li:li'rln—Petn for windiw up, directed to be heard March 30, was adjoumed by the Court, and will be heard ednesday, April 20. Francis 6: Johnson, 26 Austin Friars, solors for company. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named. not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of April 19

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

Loon, Enivis PECKHAM, Little Braithwaite, nr Keiwick, Cumberland May 5 Iowthian, Keswick

Losaspow, MARTHA, Kettering, Northampton May 18 Bull, Kettering

Lucas, CHARLES, Clapton May 17 Randall Qt Son, Copthall bldga

MCLANACHAN, Msnr, Chesterfield, Derby May 24 Stanton & Walker, Chesterfield Muoa, Faaosaicir, New Cross, Licensed Victualler April 30 Foy & Co, New Cross rd MAKIN, Rossinu, Preston April 18 Dean & Waterhouse, Blackpool

POWELL, Tiioius, Morriston, Glam, Grocer May 14 Johnston & Co, Finsbury pavt Rsso, ELIZABITH, Lechlade, Glos May 2 Dawes & Sons, Angel ct ' Roaissos, Enizsnirrn, Salisbury, Wilts May 1 Hodding &: Jackson, Salisbury ROBINBOI, J ims, Morpeth May 12 Brett, Moi-peth

Psiraxsrr, Eoivsao RUSSELL, Stafford, Merchant May 10 Ward, Dudley RU8BBl($;n%)l;sWABD TKOIAB, Coptic st, Bloomsbury May 9 Russell & Co, Old J ewry

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