« PreviousContinue »
painted and whitened all the internal parts of the said premises where perils, which had come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the ship usually painted and whitewashed. Now we do hereby require you to within the meaning of the policy. The learned judge thought it was not remedy the said breaches of covenant, and to make fair and reasonable enough for the shipowner to say: "The perils of the sea have caused compensation for the said breaches of covenant. And we hereby give you loss to me, and you must indemnity me." He must go further, and notice that, unless within one month or a reasonable time thereafter you shew that they had caused the loss of, or damage to, his ship. In his remedy the said breaches, and make reasonable compensation in money opinion the cost of dealing with and unloading and disposing of the cargo, for the said breaches, we will commence an action.
The notice or, as Mr. Walton called it, the filthy mass into which the cargo had been was not complied with, and in October, 1893, the house was entirely changed, was not a loss which had happened to the thing insured by any of demolished by the London County Council as being a dangerous structure. the perils insured against. Sea perils or no sea perils, the shipowner had to At the time of the granting of the lease the premises were over 200 years empty his shipif he intended to use her again, and therefore the cost of doing old, and very dilapidated. This was a claim in an action for the admin- it could not be said to be rendered necessary by reason of the perils istration of Thomas Serle's estate by the representatives of the lessor insured against, it had to be incurred any way, and the fact that in the asking for liberty to establish their claim to damages for dilapidations one case the shipowner would, by discharging become entitled to his and breach of covenant to repair upon the estate of the deceased, and for freight, whereas in the other case he could not get his freight, seemed to possession of the premises on forfeiture for breach of covenant.
the learned judge not to concern the underwriters on ship at all; and if KBKBWICH, J., said that as regards the first part of the notice it was he was not entitled to the cost of discharging it followed, a fortiori, that not so distinct as to direct the attention of the lessee to the particular be was not entitled to the costs of dealing with or disposing of the cargo. things of which the landlord complained, and that it was therefore bad as In conclusion, he held as a fact that the plaintiffs had been fully paid by offending against the rules laid down by North, J., in Fletcher v. Nokes, the underwriters for all that could properly be called the costs of repair(1897, 1 Ch. 271), and by Collins, L.J., in Penton v. Barnett (1898, 1 Q. B. ing. They had, no doubt, incurred further consequential loss, but it was 276). The second and third parts of the notice were sufficiently specific, a loss for which the defendant was not in any way liable. Judgment but as the first part was bad they could not save the notice. It was also would, therefore, be with the defendant with costs.-Counsel, Joseph said that the lease gave three months in which to do repairs whereas the Walton, Q.C., and Lewis Noad ; Carver, Q.C., and T. E. Scrutton. notice required them to be done in one; that was not an objection of SOLICITORS, W. A. Crump & Son ; Waltons, Johnson, Bubb, 8. Whatton. moment, for it did not affect the statutory right of the lessee to have a
[Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.] reasonable time in which to do the repairs. If the notice were otherwise good it would be sufficient. On the authority of the above-mentioned
REG. v. HUMPHREY. C. C. R. 2nd April. cases his lordship held that the notice was bad and that the applicant was CRIMINAL LAW-GAMING—Place Used for BETTING - Private THOROUGHnot therefore entitled to possession. With regard to the question
FARE-BETTING ACT, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 119), ss. 1, 3. 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
Case stated by the Recorder of Leeds. The defendant was tried at the action and that while an action was maintainable, a claim like this for Leeds Quarter Sessions on an indictment under the Betting Act, 1853, merely nominal damages could not be sustained. But the contention that charging him with having opened, kept, and used a certain place-to wit, the damages were merely nominal could not be supported. It was said
an archway in Princess-street, Leeds—for the purpose of betting with that the house was so dilapidated that it could not be repaired. That persons resorting thereto on certain events and contingencies of and was not a sufficient answer. The lessee was bound to repair, and it was relating to a horse-race. The archway was a private thoroughfare, the not contended that he had. But it was said this was not a continuing property of certain mill-owners, and was the only means of access from breach because the house had been pulled down. His lordship was, Princess-street into a yard at the back of the mills, containing dwelling. however, of opinion that, notwithstanding the house had been pulled houses, stables, and workshops, which were also their property. Hum. down, the breach was a continuing one, and that the lessee was therefore phrey had no right in the archway, nor had anyone except for the liable in damages and allowed the applicant to prove for damages caused purpose of passing through the same into the yard and the houses, &c., by the breaches of the covenant up to the time when the premises were
Therein. The archway was 29ft. 9in. long by 10ft. llin. wide and 12ft. pulled down. -COUNSEL, Warrington, Q.C., and Turrill; Renshaw, Q.O., high. It was proved that the defendant had been present in the archand W. L. Richards. SOLICITORS, E. A. J. Breed; Anning & Co.
way on the days in question, and had made bets with from thirteen to
forty persons who bad resorted thereto, receiving money, giving betting [Reported by C. C. HENSLEY, Barrister-at-Law.]
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 High Court-Queen's Bench Division.
recorder fined him $20. THE FIELD STEAMSHIP Co. (LIM.) v. BURR. Bigham, J. 22nd THE COURT (Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., and HAWKINS, WILLS, March.
KENNEDY, and Ridley, JJ.) affirmed the conviction. MARINR INSURANCE-COLLISION-CARGO RENDERED WORTHLESS BY WATER Lord RusseLL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., said that the argument for the -CARGO Owners ABANDON SAME TO UNDERWRITERS-SHIPOWNER Com appellant mainly rested on the decision of the case of Powell v. Kempton
DISCHARGE AND DISPOSE OF Cargo-LIABILITY OF Ship-|Park Racecourse Co. (1897, 2 Q. B. 242). Without expressing any opinion OWNER FOR EXPENSES 80 INCURRED.
whether that was an authority which the present court would be bound to Commercial cause. The action was brought by the owners of the therein must be treated with deference and respect.
follow, it was clear that the opinions of the learned judges of appeal
The question then steamship mfield to recover a partial loss under a policy of marine arose, Was that case one which should oblige this court to say that no insurance effected upon the hull and machinery of the steamship. The offence against the statute had been committed ? It would be matter for question raised was substantiully whether the underwriters on a ship the greatest regret if that were taken to be the effect of the Kempton Park were liable under a policy in common form to pay expenses incurred by
In the opinion of the learned judge it had no such operation at all. the shipowner in discharging and disposing of a cargo which had been so damaged in a collision that it became worthless and had been rejected by It was necessary to state the facts of that case in order to explain this
In that case betting took place on a racecourse, to which multithe cargo owners.
tudes resorted for purposes of sport. On that racecourse was an enclosure BIGHAM, J., in the course of his considered judgment, said during the of large area which afforded opportunities of seeing the races, and in currency of the policy The Elmfield was carrying a cargo of cotton seed which there were constructions affording shelter from weather. Anyone on a voyage from Alexandria to London. On the 20th of December, who chose to pay the admission price was allowed to enter. The numbers 1896, sbe arrived in the Thames, when The Derwent ran into her and varied. Some went there as bookmakers, others to “ back their fancy," caused such serious damage to her hull below the water-line that it others merely to see the races. There was no appropriation of any distinct became necessary to run her ashore. Some of her cargo was removed in part of that large enclosure for the purpose of betting therein. The mere ligbters, and on the 5th of January, 1897, she was towed to Millwall statement of those facts marked the difference between that case and the Dock, where it was intended that the remainder of her cargo should be present. In this case there was a gateway open to the street at one end diecharged. It proved, however, that by the action of the water which and a courtyard at the other. Itz dimensions were about 29ft. by 10ft. had got into the ship in consequence of the accident the cargo had The defendant habitually resorted to it, and “held the bank against all become rotten and offensive, and the sanitary authority ordered the ship comers,” for the purpose of betting of the worst class. It was betting owner to abate the nuisance and remove the cotton seed. The owners of away from the racecourse, and had no reference to sport. In that gateway the carge meanwhile bad given notice of abandonment to the under he lay in wait-in wait for the express purpose of carrying on the business writers, and neither they nor their underwriters would pay freight or take of betting with those who would bet with him. It had been admitted delivery, alleging, as was not disputed, that the cotton seed had become that this might be properly described as a place within the Act.
It was worthless. I'he plaintiffs under these circumstances made a contract obvious that it was so, and was capable structurally of being regarded as with a firm to discharge the offensive carge and spread it as manure on a place. Was it then used as a betting place ? The answer to that was land a short distance away, at a charge of 58. per ton. The major part of that the defendant habitually attended there alone as a bettor against all the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant and his re-insurers was admitted comers. There was therefore in existence everything to create the offence and paid, but the defendant denied liability for two items, the subject of charged- both the place and the purpose. The conviction was therefore this action-namely: (1) the charges incurred in dealing with the cargo properly arrived at. He desired to add that it was not to the public after the date of the collision and before the contract for the disposal of advantage that there should be the ambiguity which existed as to the the cargo; and (2) the cost of discharging and getting rid of the residue law on this matter. It was impossible to reconcile all the varying authori. of the cotton seed as manure; which items together amounted to £1,042. ties. The cases that from time to time were brought up shewed that there The question was-whether the defendant and his co-underwiters were was urgent need for legislation on the subject, and that speedily all under any liability to recoup the plaintiffs any, and, if so, what part of ambiguity should be removed. this expenditure. Mr. Joseph Walton contended for the plaintiffs that HAWKINS, J., concurred in everything that the Lord Chief Justice had the expenditure in question was recoverable as having been caused by I said in respect of the case before the court. It was in accordance with
the decision in Hawke v. Dunn (1897, 1 Q. B. 579) and Reg. v. Preedy (17 Cox C. C. 433). As to Powell v. Kempton Park, the circumstances of that
Solicitors' Cases. 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 Re W. L. BUTLER (A SOLICITOR). Ex parte THE INCORPORATED that legielation ought to take place, and was of opinion that some mode of
LAW SOCIETY. Div. Court. 1st April. arriving at a knowledge of the necessary facts ought to precede legislation. SOLICITOR—Misconduct-INSTRUCTIONS TO Act as SOLICITOR FOR ComThe present ambiguity was unfortunate and unseemly. Wills, J., said the general principle laid down in the Kempton Park case
PLAINANT-IMPROPERLY RETAINED BALANCE OF A LOAN FOR H18 Costs, was that one test for decision of cases of this kind was the combination of
WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND BEFORE ANY BILL OF COSTS WAS DELIVERED circumstances relating to the characteristics of the spot, and the other
SOLICITORS ACT, 1888, s. 13. test was the user of the spot. That as a general proposition could not be In this case the Statutory Committee of the Incorporated Law Society denied. Both elements of the offence were present in this cake. The reported that the respondent William Leonard Butler, who was admitted archway had every physical characteristic which was required to make it a solicitor in April, 1891, and subsequently carried on business as fall within the Act. The user was identical with that which it would Sedgwick & Butler' at Stratford, received instructions to act in several have been if the place had been boxed in and placarded up like any office. matters for the complainant. The charges against him were that he had How could it, then, be said that there was no evidence for a conviction induced the complainant on false representations to pledge the lease of Speaking of the Kempton Park case, of course, that case being a decision of her house for a loan of £35 at an exorbitant rate of interest, and that he the Court of Appeal, it was entitled to the highest respect, and he was used the greater part of the money so obtained for his own purposes, not prepared to say that this court might not be bound by it; but he being himself at the time in financial difficulties ; that during part of the much regretted the circumstances of th manner under which it came time the respondent was acting as solicitor for the complainant he was before the courts. It was an action brought for a purpose. Both parties not in possession of a certificate entitling him to practise as a solicitor, to it were desirous to get rid of Hawke v. Dunn. Both parties agreed to a Counsel for the solicitor denied that his client had misappropriated any statement that the particular kind of betting carried on on the spot had of the money he had received on behalf of the complainant. He had existed since the beginning of the century. That statement made it done a great deal of work for her and had not been paid anythinç, on difficult to see how such betting could come within the Act-for the Act account of his bill of costs. His financial difficalties arose from the fact paesed in 1843 recited that “a kind of gaming has of late sprung up.
that he had been the victim of another person, who was an unscrupulous It could not, it was true, be said that the judgment was based on that man, and that the latter had openly stated his intention to ruin him. The statement, but it was a material fact, possibly true, but collusively stated. charge of having acted without having renewed his certificate for a short It was very unfortunate that such a case should have come before the time was res judicata. It had formed a charge in another complaint that Court of Appeal to be the leading case. In the view of the learned judge had been brought against bim, and the committee then found that the there was urgent need for legislation. It was scarcely short of a scandal circumstances under which he omitted to take out his certificate for this to have the leading authority on the subject obtained under the circum- period were such as not to amount to professional misconduct. [Day, J. stances pointed out.
--You need not argue that point, the other charges are those that you KENNEDY, J., concurred. He thought the present decision in no way have to meet.] conflicted with the Kempton Park case. It was therefore unnecessary to The COURT (Day and Bruce, JJ.) held that the case shewed that the say anything more about it. He referred to the case of Liddell v. Loft- solicitor had been guilty of grave misconduct, and ordered that the name house (1896, 1 Q. B. 295) as being undistinguishable from the present. of William Leonard Butler should be struck off the rolls.-COUNSEL, F. He agreed in the importance of legislation on the subject, because questions on these points were continually being raised before the inferior
1P. Hollams ; Harold Hardy. Solicitor, E. W. Williamson. courts all over the kingdom.
(Peported by EASKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.]
THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR.
(Continued from p. 400 ) Winding-up Cases.
Matlers Relating to Professional Conduct and Etiquette.-The attention of
the Council has during the past year been drawn to various matters Re THE SALE HOTEL AND BOTANICAL GARDENS CO. (LIM). C. A. relating to professional conduct and etiquette, and the Council has taken No. 2. 31st March ; 1st and 5th April.
such steps in reference thereto as upon consideration appeared advisable. COMPANY-WINDING UP — PROMOTER — LIABILITY TO ACCOUNT OR MAKE
The following are among such matters :COMPENSATION " ANY MONBYS OR PROPERTY OF
(I.) Retainer Rules.-Numerous applications have been made to the
THE COMPANY”WHETHER MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED TO THE USE OF THE COMPANY, BUT
General Council of the Bar during the past two years with regard to the NOT ITS PROPERTY TILL RECEIVED BY THE PROMOTER, IS INCLUDED –Com- practice as to retainers of counsel, prepared by the bar committee, and
meaning and enforcement of rules 14 and 20 of the rules regulating the PANIES (WINDING-UP) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 10.
approved by the Attorney-General and the Incorporated Law Society This was an appeal from a decision of Wright, J. (sitting as an in 1892. Rule 14 is as follows: "A counsel who has been specially additiona! judge of the Chancery Division), who had made an order retained is entitled to the delivery of a brief on every occasion to which directing J. R. Hesketh to account to the Sale Hotel and Botanical the special retainer applies; provided always: A special retainer Gardens Co. (Limited) for certain moneys received by him.
does not entitle a Queen's Counsel to the delivery of a brief on The Court (Lindley, M.R., and RIGBY and VAUGHAN Williams, L.JJ.) occasions when it is usual to instruct junior counsel only. Where allowed the appeal.
more than one junior counsel has been retained, only one of such LINDLEY, M.R., in the course of his judgment, said: The company, it junior counsel is entitled to the delivery of a brief on occasions seems to me, never had a right to call upon Mr. Hesketh to account for when it is usual to instruct one junior counsel alone." Rule 20 is that money. I am not prepared to put a narrow construction on section as follows: “Counsel who has drawn pleadings or advised, or accepted 10 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, which enacts that “where, a brief, during the progress of an action on behalf of any party in the course of the winding up of a company under the Companies Acts shall not accept a retainer or brief from any other party without giving it appears that any person who has taken part in the formation or the party for whom he has drawn pleadings or advised, or on whose promotion of the company has misapplied or retained, or become behalf he has accepted a briof, the opportunity of retaining or delivering liable or accountable for any moneys or property of the company,” the a brief to him, but such counsel is entitled to a brief at the trial, and on court may “compel him to repay any moneys or restore any property so any interlocutory application where counsel is engaged, unless express misapplied,
or to contribute such sums of money to the assets notice to the contrary shall have been given to him with the instructions of the company by way of compensation in respect of such misapplication, to draw such pleadings or advise, or at the time of the delivery of such retainer,
as the court thinks just." "I cannot help thinking that brief. Provided always such counsel shall not be entitled to a brief in any any money which ought to be treated, whether on legal or on equitable case where he is unable or unwilling to accept the same without receivgrounds, as received by any promoter to the use of the company, falls ing a special fee." The Council having fully considered the matter, have within that discretion. I think the words “moneys or property of the resolved : (1) That the said rules 14 and 20° be enforced by the following company” are used in a popular sense. This is not a section which is practice: "When a brief is offered or delivered to any counsel, and he concerned with drawing accurate lines between ownership and non finds that another counsel has become entitled to a brief within the meaning ownership; and I think it would be a very narrow construction of this part of rule 14 or 20, and has not been briefed, such first-named counsel ought of the section to confine its operation to moneys which were the property where practicable to ascertain from the solicitor offering or delivering of the company before they reached the pocket of the man whom it is such brief whether there is any sufficient explanation why a brief has not fought to make accountable for them. But putting on those words the been offered or delivered tɔ such other counsel, and unless a satisfactory wider construction which I think one ought to put upon them, I look in explanation is given ought to refuse to return the brief." Au (2) " that vain for any obligation on Hesketh's part to hand over this money to the such practice be henceforth considered a Rule of the profession." company.
(II.) Re Clerks to Public Bodies Practising at the Bar.–The attention of Rigby and Vaughan Williams, L.JJ., concurred.-Counsel, McCall, the Council having been called to the following resolution of the Council Q.C., and R. Younger ; Astbury, Q.C., and' e. s Ford. Solicitors, Row? passed in October, 1896, and published in the Council's last annual cliffes, Rawle, f Co., for Roper, Briggs, f Crosse, Manchester ; W. A. Gibb, statement, and adopted by the general meeting of the bar on the 4th for Charles Dunderdale, Manchester.
day of May, 1897, viz. : ' That a barrister holding the office of town [Reported by R, C, MACKENZIE, Barrister-at-Law.]
clerk, clerk' to guardians, or any similar public body, ought not to
practise at the bar.” The Council have further resolved as follows: Re Lay Advocates Appearing upon Local Inquiries.—The council learn that * That, in their opinion, a barrister would be justified in refusing to hold instances have occurred of persons appearing as advocates for parties on a brief with anyone who transgressed the above resolution, and that local inquiries who are neitner barristers nor solicitors nor in any way barrister3 ought not to hold briefs with members of the profession who connected with such parties. Thinking such a practice objectionable alike wilfully transgress established rules of the profession.". The Council are in the interest of the public and the profession, they have addressed a g'ad to notice that, as suggested in the last annual statement, the con. communication to the Incorporated Law Society with the object of ascerBi lidated regulations of the four Inns of Court have been amended in taining the views of the society upon the matter, and considering whether accordance with the Council's suggestion. The declaration to be made by joint representations thereon should be made on behalf of the Council a student before call to the bar now contains a provision that if called to and the society to the departments under whose authority such inquiries the bar he will not be or act as a town clerk, a clerk to a town clerk, a
are held. clerk to a board of guardians or overseers, or a clerk in the office of a
Re The Long Vacation - At the last annual meeting of the Incorporated county council, or hold any similar oflice so long and while he is in practice Law Society, held on the 9th of July, 1897, the following resolution was as a barrister.
passed : "That in the opinion of this society the duration of the Long (III.) Re a Barrister Holding the Appointment of Coroner and Practising at | Vacation should be reduced to eight weeks-first Monday in August to the Bar.-The ruling of the Council has been asked on the following last Saturday in September." This resolution having been again approved points : (1) Is there any rule or custom of the bar to prevent a member at the annual provincial meeting, held at Sheffield on the 6th of October, of a circuit who holds an appointment as coroner in a county included in 1897, was in the following December adopted by the Council of the society. that circuit practising generally ou that circuit-i.e., at assizes, quarter The General Council of the Bar having been asked by the Council of the sessions, police courts, county courts, &c. ? (2) If yes, would such society to express their opinion on the subject, resolved as fullows : prohibition apply to the entire circuit, or only to such part of it as is “That it is not desirable that the proposal of the Incorporated Law included in the coroner's jurisdiction ? (3) If the answer to (1) Society to alter the Long Vacation by making it extend from the first be no,'
,” would the Council consider it an unprofessional or un Monday in August to the last Saturday in September be carried into desirable thing for a barrister who was a coroner to continue to practise effect." on a circuit which included his coroner's district ? The Council Re The Defence of Prisoners by Counsel.-In consequence of a resolution have replied: (1) “ That they know of no rule of the profession to moved before the Council to the effect that “it is desirable that every prevent a barrister holding such a position from so practising though prisoner should be defended by counsel,” the Council have appointed the they are unable to say that such a course might not offend against following committee to consider and report generally upon the question circuit rules. (2) That they would not consider it an unprofessional or of the defence of prisoners by counsel Mr. Crackanthorpe, Q.O., Mr. undesirable thing for a barrister holding such a position to so practise so Milvain, Q.C., Mr. Alderson Foote, Q.C., Hon. A. Lyttelton, M.P., Mr. loug as he does not appear as counsel in cases connected with or arising Clavell Salter, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Guy Stephenson. The committee cut of matters with which he has dealt as coroner.
have already communicated with the official representatives of several (IV.) – Re County Court Etiquette.-The ruling of the Council has been British Colonies with a view to ascertaining what the practice is there. asked on the following questions : (1) Is it contrary to etiquette for a Re The Appointment of Judges.- The Council have resolved as follows: barrister to eit or be present in a county court without holding a brief? " That in the opinion of this Council persons occupying subordinate (2) If it is permissible to be present, are robes permitted or undesirable ? judicial positions should not, save under very exceptional circumstances, The Councii bave resolved as follows: (1) " That it is not contrary to be appointed to be justices of the High Court.” etiquette for a barrister to attend a county court without being instructed in any ca:e before the court." (2) " That there is no objection to a
Re The Annual General Meeting.-The Council have during the course of
the year adopted the following resolutions : (1) “That it is desirable that a barrister so attending in robes."
general meeting of the Bar should be held at least once a year for the (V.) The Council having had their attention drawn to a case in which discussion of subjects of interest to the profession ;” and (2) “That it a barrister, a member of a county council, appeared as counsel before is desirable that any member of the Bar should be at liberty to bring a committee of such county council, resolved as follows: "That in their forward for discussion at the annual general meeting any resolution of opinion it is undesirable that a barrister who is a member of a county which he has given notice pursuant to regulation 28, provided that in the council should appear as counsel before a committee of such county opinion of the executive committee such resolution is a matter of general council."
interest to the bar." The second of such resolutions would probably (VI.) Disputes as to Fees, fc., between Barristers and Solicitors. At the involve the amendment of the Council's regulations. suggestion of the Incorporated Low Society, the Chairman of the Council Re The Annual Election.- The Council have appointed a committee to con bas during the past year undertaken, in cojunction with the President of sider the working of the rules relatiog to the election of the Council, and the society, the settlement of various differeuces which have arisen between to report whether they can advantageously be altered or amended. members of the two branches of the profession. Before the matter is entertained the parties in dispute are required to sign the following memorandum : 76 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
LEGAL NEWS. 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
OBITUARY. think fit, and to abide by their decision." It is believed that this method Mr. Henry GRIBBLE, solicitor, sepior partner in the firm of Messrs. of settlement has been of service to the parties.
Gribble, Gouldsmith, & Gribble, of Bristoī, died on the 5th inst. at the age The Establishment of County Criminal Courts and the Extension of Jurisdiction of seventy-six years. He had for some time suffered from severe illuers, of Quarter Sessions. - As mentioned in the last annual statement, the con which was aggravated by grief caused by the death of one of bis sons, Mr. sideration of these most important questions was referred by the Council E. L. Gribble, in January of last year. He was admitted in 1844, and to the Standing Committee on Business and Procedure for consideration had been in practice for more thau half a cevtury, his firm consisting and report. The committee, in exercise of their power to invite any of himself, Mr. Samuel S. Gouldsmith, and Mr. H. E. Gribble. Mr. member of the bar to serve thereon, invited Mr. Dickens, Q.C., and Mr. Gribble's funeral took place at Westbury-on-Trym, and was largely Scott Fox so to serve. Sir Harry Poland was good enough to attend attended. The first part of the service was held at Emmanuel Church, before the committee, who thus had the advantage of hearing his views on Clifton. the matter at first hand. The committee sat for several months, during which they made extensive enquiries into the present system, and collected
CHANGES IN PARTNERSHIPS. a large amount of valuable information, which was comprised in a lengthy report ultimately presented to the Council. The Council having, on
D1880LUTIONS. Eeveral occasions, considered the matter, on the 12th of July resolved as Thomas HOLBECHE and HINRY WILLIAM Patey, solicitors (Holbeche follows: (1) “That no extension of the jurisdiction of quarter sessions as & Patey), 17, Ironmonger-lane, Cheapside, London, 22, High-street, at present constituted is advisable." (2) “That the institution of a Hitchin, and Bridge-street, Shefford. March 25. county criminal court for each county on the lines suggested by Sir Harry Poland is desirable."
FRANCIS CECIL Lane and MONTAGUE WHITE WHITE, solicitors (Lane & The Conduct of Civil Business in the Queen's Bench Division of the High White), Plymouth. . March 26. The said Francis Cecil Lane and Charles Court of Justice.—After quoting the reports already published, the Council Edward Cottier will continue the said business under the style or kay :
firm of Lane & Cottier. The Council understand that the Lord Chancellor is giving the matters EDMUND GIFFORD AMes and HERBERT EDMUND A MES, solicitors (E. G. referred to in the above reports his careful consideration.
Ames & Son), Frome, Radstock, and Midsomer Norton. March 31. The Taxes Management Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 19).-Section 57 (9). said Herbert Edmund Ames and alfred Percy Ames, of Frome, will benceAppeals.—"No barrister, solicitor, attorney, or any person practising the forth carry on the business at the same places and under the same style. law shall be allowed to plead before the said commissioners on such appeal
[Gazette, April 8. for the appellant or officers either viva voce or by writing." It having been represented to the Council that complicated and difficult questions
GENERAL. arise before the commissioners involving large sums of money, and that the taxpayer is precluded by the above section from any professional
A Provincial Grard Lodge of Mark Masons for Cornwall was held at assistance, whereas the Revenue Authorities are represented by trained | Truro on Wednesday for the installation of Lord Halsbury as Provincial esperts, The Council have resolved as follows : *That steps should Grand Master. be taken to enable persons appealing to the commissioners under the above A Washington lawyer, gays the Albany Law Journal, recently appeared Eection of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, to be represented by counsel as counsel in a case before a justice of the peace, and found it necessary on such appeals, if they should so desire."
to make frequent objections to the evidence ihe cpposing counsel was
attempting to introduce. The justice looked first annoyed and then indignant at these frequent interruptions. Finally he could contain him
CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES. self no longer, and roared out : "What kind of a lawyer are you, anyway?" "I am a patent lawyer," replied the attorney with dignity. SPRING ASSIZES, 1899.
N. EASTERN. "Well,” retorted the justice scornfully, when the patent expires you will have a hard time getting it renewed. Go on with the case !"
Bruce, J. The Albany Law Journal prints the text of a Bill which has just become
Channell, J. Jaw, providing for the registration of attorneys and counsellors-at-law in the State of New York, which comes into effect on the 1st of September Monday, April 18
Manchester 2 next, and provides that on and after the 1st of January, 1899, it shall be
(Civil and Criminal) unlawful for any person to practise law in that State without haviog Monday, May 2
Liverpool 2 registered As there are in the State probably between fourteen and
(Civil and Criminal)
Leeds fifteen thousand attorneys, the time allowed none too long. There are,
(Criminal) 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 admitted. Mr. W. A. Casson, the Local Government Board auditor, has, says the
THE PROPERTY MART. Times, surcharged the members of the Ampthill Urban District Council
SALES OF THE ENSUING WEEK. with fees paid to a water-diviner, on the ground that the diviner had made pretence to a power within the meaning of the decision in the case April 19.- Messrs. WriroRD & Dixons, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freebold Properties in
the West End of London, let on repairing leases to tenants of old standing, producReg. v. Maria Giles (34 L. J. M. C. 54), in which it was held that “The jpg £856 per annum; Licensed Corner Premises near Regent-street, let on lease at pretence of a power, either physical, moral, or supernatural, and obtaining £100 per annum ; Freehold Ground-rent of £120 per annum, secured upon Nos. 1 to 20, money by the false assertion of such a power, whatever it may be, is an
Bolton Studios, South Kensington, with reversion in 66 years; Freehold Ground-rents indictable offence under the letter of the statute and within the mischief
of £70 per annum, secured upon property in Holborn, with reversion in 85 years ;
Freehold Dwelling-house near to Tottenbam Court-road, let and producing £106 per intended to be prevented by it.” The consideration in the agreement for annum, with Workshop let at £16. Solicitors, Messrs. Dixon, Weld, & Dixons, the water-diviner's employment was therefore an illegal one, and the
London. (See advertisements, April 2, p. 5.) agreement for such employment void in law.
April 19.--Messrs. HERRING, Son, & Daw, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Residence in
Streatham, containing 8 bed and 3 reception rooms, stabling, greenhouses, &c., in all The forty-fifth report of the Charity Commissioners for 1897, which has about 1 acre Solicitors, Messrs. Wellborne & Son, London, (See advertisement, been recently issued, shows that during the year the number of orders April 2, p. 4.) made was 4,119 (as against 3,629 in 1896, 3,079 in 1895, 3,130 in 1894, April 20.--Messrs. DOUGLAS YOUNG & Co., at the Mart, at 2p.m.:
Barking-Side.-- Freehold; 3} miles from Ilford ; seven rooms; 2} acres of and 3,113 in 1893), and of these 715 were orders for the appointment or
ground. Solicitors, Messrs. King & Jenkins, London, removal of trustees, for the establishment of schemes for the regulation of Kennington.-Copyholds ; Two Shops, Lower Kennington-lane; let at £125 per charities, or for vesting their real estate. The total sum of stocks and
Also Short Leaseholds producing £145 Ss. per annum. Solicitors, investments held by the official trustees of charitable funds on the 31st of
H. J. Sydney, Esq., and J. G. Kempster, Esq., both of London.
Brixton.--20, Gately-road; cight rooms; let at £40; lease 70 years. Solicitors, December, 1897, amounted to £18,774,270, divided into 19,722 separate
Messrs. Vandercom & Co., London, accounts. This sum is irrespective of certain securities expressed in
Clapham Junction.-Two Shops, let on lease at £60; Laundry, let at £15; lease terms of foreign currencies, and also of certain other securities. During
83 years. Solicitors, Messrs. Hicktin, Washington, & Pasmore, London.
Chelsea.--Family Residence, £70 per annum; lea se 63 years. Solicitors, Messrs. the year sums of stock amounting in the aggregate to £269,535 were sold
Riddell, Vaiz-y, & Smith, London, or transferred by the official trustees.
Clapham.-An 8-roomed House, let at £36 ; lease 70 years.
Peckham.-Four Houses, let at £36 per annum each ; lease 70 years. Mr. Preston, writing to the Times, says that a Parliamentary return,
Five Leasehold Investments, held for loog unexpired terms; rentals, £26, £20, recently issued, gives some interesting facts and figures as to funds in
£27 68., 6s. 6d. and 7s. each, 63. ed. and 78. 6d. each. Solicitor, H. S. Chancery. It appears that the receipts and transfers into the Supreme
Woodd, Esq , London.
Brixton.-Six Leasehold Shops, producing £219 118. per annum; lease 25 years. Court of Judicature (England) during the year ended the 28th of
Solicitors, Messrs. Halse, Trustram, & Co., London. February, 1897, were £14,250,992 45. 3d. This sum, added to the Brixton.-Leasehol 1 Residence, let at £9); Nursery Ground, let at £10; and balance in hand on the 1st of March, 1896, makes a total of
Ground-rents on seven adjoining houses, with reversions to rack-rentals for £73,983,760 123. 10d. After payments out of court to successful
terms of 11 and 18 years; lease 373 years unexpired. Solicitors, Messrs.
Halse, Trustram, & Co., London, claimants and others, amounting to £15,671,768 53. 4d., there remained
Clapham Junction. - Ten rooms; let at £10; lease 223 years. Solicitors, Messrs. in hand, in cash and securities, on the 28th of February, 1897, the large
Halse, Trustram, & Co., London. balance of £58,311,992 78. Od., exclusive of several items under the head
Chelsca.-Eight Cottages, producing £124 163. _per annum; lease 50 years; of “Foreign Currencies." The number of suitors' accounts is 44,725,
ground-rent £12. Solicitors, Messrs. Halse, Trustram, & Co., London.
(See advertisements, April 3, p. 5.) and, according to the official list of dormant funds, some 5,000 relate to April 20.—Messrs. H. E. Foster & Cranfield, at the Mart, at 2 p:m , Leasehold Resi accounts undealt with since 1877.
dence at Regent's Park, in the occupation of George R. Sims, Esq., producing £250 Mr. F. A. Stringer, writing to the Times, says: “In the course of an per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Paul E. Vanderpump & Eve, London. Three
Twelve-roomed Residences at Notting Hill, held for 66 years, of the value of £70 investigation for the purpose of an encyclopædia article, I have come
each. Solicitors, Messrs. Sanderson, Adkin, & Lee, and Messrs. Lake & Lake, all of across some facts which I trust may induce our legislators to relieve the London. Leasehold Shop in Sydenham, held for 97 years and let at £55 per annum. millions of witnesses who are sworn every year from the medically-certified Solicitors, Messrs. E. C. Kilsby & Son, London. risk involved in taking the oath in the ordinary established form. The April 21.–Mr. Joseph Srower, at the Mart, at 2 pm., Freehold Dwelling Inase in first is that, although the practice of requiring an oath in support of
New Cross-road, let until September, 1902, at £36 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs.
Morley, Shirreff, & Co, London. A Freehold Ground-rent of £8 135. 60. per annum, testimony has prevailed in this country for at least a thousand years, secured upon manufacturing premises in Clerkenwell, with early reversion to rack probably longer, the practice of swearing by kissing the Bible or Testa rent of £70 per annum ; also à Freehold House, opposite St Catherine's Ducks, let ment is not more than 150 years old. It is certain that at the end of the
at £21 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Crouse & Sons, London. Leasehol 1 Invest
ment, comprising Shop and Dwelling-house in St. Pancras, held for 20 years at seventeenth century the ordinary established method was for the witness
ground-rents amounting to £76 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. 8. Hughes & Sons, to swear by placing bis hand on the Bible. So far as I am aware, no London. (See advertisements, this week, p. 3). record exists prior to the middle of the eighteenth century to shew that April 21. Messrs. H. E. Foster & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m.; the Bible was kissed by the witness in swearing. The second important REVERSIONS : fact is that, though in all other respects the form of oath has remained To One-fourth of a Trust Estate, value £41,223 in first-class Stocks; lady aged practically the same for centuries throughout Christendom, the practice
62. Solicitors, Messrs. Winterbothams & Gurney, Cheltenham.
To a Legacy of £1,000; lady aged 58. Solicitors, Messrs. Preston, Stow, & of 'kissing the Book' is peculiar to England, and does not exist, and
Preston, London. never has existed, in any other country.”
To One-fifth of a Trust Estate, value £22,000 in American Stock; lady aged 60.
Solicitor, H. Stanley-Jones, Esq., London.
lady aged 7", provided reversioner, aged 38, survive her; also a similar
To one-third of Freehold Properties situate in Worcester, Hereford, & Gloucester,
Solicitors, Messrs. F.
J. & G. J. Braikenridge, London.
Of £200, payable during life of gentleman aged 50, with Policy. Solicitor, H.
Stanley-Jones, Esq., London,
FREEHOLD GROUND-RENTS :
One-eighth share on Shop Property at Peckham, producing £343 per Annum. Tuesday
Solicitors, Messrs. C. & E. Woodroffe, London.
Pemberton ROYAL ALBERT HALL:
Two Stalls. Solicitors, Messrs. Dawes & Sons, London,
Pernberton (See advertisements, this week, back page.)
WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.—Before pur. Tuesday
Rolt chasing or renting a house, have the Sanitary Arrangements thoroughly Wednesday.
Examined, Tested, and Reported Upon by an Expert from Messrs. Carter
Bros., 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee quoted on receipt of full Saturday
particulars. (Established 21 years.)--[ADVT.]
........ 22 ......... 23
19 .20 21 .22 .23
CARTMEL, Thomas, Barrow in Farness April 30 Cartmel, Kendal
CHADWICK, SAMUEL BECKETT, Sutton, nr Frodsham May 31 Davies & Co, Warrington
CHILCOTT, JOHN GILBERT, Gwendroc, Truro May 8 Chilcott & Sons, Truro
COGSWELL, HENRY CHARLES, South Kensington May 6 Spottiswoode, Norfolk st
Cookson, JIMMY, Stainland, nr Halifax, Joiner May 3 Longbotham & Sons, Halifax LIMITED IN CAANOERY.
Cross, GEORGE HENRY, Barking, Essex, Grazier May 7 Tyler, Ilford CROSTA PATENT NUT SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before May 9 to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to
Cumixg, ERNEST BAGWELL, Bradninch, Devon April 26 W & H Smith, Dartmouth Samuel William Hutton, 99, Gresham st. Green & Williams, Nottingham, solors DANGER, MARY, Bournemouth April 30 Reed & Co, Bridgwater E. MOREWOOD & Co, LIMITED-By an order made by Wright, J., dated March 23, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Paterson, Fins Flockton, WILLIAM, Scarborough May 4 Birdsall & Cross, Scarborough bury circus, solors to petners
GISBORNE, WILLIAM, Allestree Hall, nr Derby May 2 Ravenscroft & Co, John st, BedENGLISH AUTOMOBILE HORSELESS CARRIAGE SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required,
Strand, solors for liquidator
directed to be heard on April 20. Bull, Clement's inn, Strand, solor for petner. Notice
HUMPHRYS, WILLIAM CHARLES, Southampton May 16 Rastrick, Newington causeway their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr Alfred
HUBT, GEORGE, Nottingham, Milk Dealer May 3 Dowson & Wright, Nottingham Lister Blow, 28, King st, Cheapside. Warner & Co, Great Winchester st, solors for liquidators
HUTCHINSON, THOMAS, Lowdham, Nottingham, Builder May 14 Eking & Wyles, RYDER & Co, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented April 4, directed to be heard on Nottingham
April 20. Ford & Co, Bloomsbury sq, solors for petners. Notice of appearing must JEFFRESON, SABAH, East Dulwich May 2 Ravenscroft & Co, John st, Bedford row reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of April 19
KNIPE, Rev. JAMES John RobINSON LEIGH, Leversham Rectory, nr Cambridge May 4 SECOND AUSTRIAN INCANDESCENT SHARE Co, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before
Webb, Bucklersbury May 20, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims,
LIGHTHOOT, CATHERINE Anx, Exeter May 14 Sparkes & Co, Exeter to Edward Hayes and William Henry Gillett, 41, Moorgate st. Francis & Johnson, Austinfriars, solors for liquidators
LODER, EDWIN PECKHAM, Little Braithwaite, nr Keswick, Cumberland May 5 STEVENS & Son (CARDIFF), LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before May 13, to send Lowthian, Keswick
their names and addresses, with particulars of their debts or claims, to John Edwin LONGslow, Martha, Kettering, Northampton May 18 Bull, Kettering Gunn, Westgate chmbre, Westgate st, Cardiff. Cousins & Co, Cardiff, solors for Lucas, CHARLES, Clapton May 17 Randall & Son, Copthall bldgs
liquidator WULFFSOHN & BEWICKE, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented April 5, directed to McLANACHAN, Mary, Chesterfield, Derby May 24 Stanton & Walker, Chesterfield
be heard on April 20. Dowson & Co, Surrey st, Victoria Embankment, agents for MAJOR, FREDERICK, New Cross, Licensed Victualler April 30 Foy & Co, New Cross rd
MAKIN, ROSANNA, Preston April 18 Dean & Waterhouse, Blackpool
Powell, Thomas, Morriston, Glam, Grocer May 14 Johnston & Co, Finsbury pavt FrascIS MORTON & Co, Limited-Petn for winding up, presented March 10, directed to be REED, ELIZABETH, Lechlade, Glos May 2 Dawes & Sons, Angel ct heard April 25, before Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy, St George's Hall, Liverpool. Yates
ROBINSON, ELIZABETH, Salisbury, Wilts May 1 Hodding & Jackson, Salisbury
ROBINSON, JANE, Morpeth May 12 Brett, Morpeth
PENSNETT, EDWARD RUSSELL, Stafford, Merchant May 10 Ward, Dudley
SENNITT, WILLIAM, Stretham, Cambridge May 12 Hall, Ely
SMALLWOOD, HENRY, Silverdale, Heswell May 3 Lamb & Co, Birkenhead
STAMP, CELINE VICTOIRE, Honiton, Devon May 5 Stamp & Co, Honiton
up, presented April 7, directed to be heard before the Court sitting in Bankruptcy STANLEY, DOUGLAS ANsThwaite, West Chapel st, Mayfair May 14 Baker & Co, Linbidgs, Carey st, April 20. Halse & Co, 61, Cheapside, solors for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of
STENNARD, HENRY JAMES, Combe Down, nr Bath, Quarrymaster May 25 O'Donoghue April 18
& Anson, Bristol
directed to be heard April 20. Francis Miller & Steele, St Stephen's chmors, Tele WARN, Ernst Einar, Gracechurch st April 30 Wild & Wild, Lawrence lane
WALKER, WILLOUGHBY Newton, Gower st May 9 Lee & Pembertons, Lincoln's inn
fields METROPOLITAN AND PROVINCIAL STORES, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, directed to be heard March 30, was adjourned by the Court, and will be heard Wednesday, April 20.
London Gazelle.-FRIDAY, April 8.
BEETLES, SARAH Ann, Chipping Norton, Oxfords May 5 Breed, Old Jewry
Bush, SAMUEL Amos, Byfield, Northampton May 2 Fairfax, Banbury
CHRISTMAS, John, Bingham, Notts, Railway Clerk May 1 Watts, St Ives, Hunts OAKLEY JUVENILE FORESTERS, Temperance Hall, Thomas st, Cirencester, Gloucester. April 6
Churcı, MARIA, East Bergholt, Suffolk May 6 Synnot, Manningtree Sick AND BURIAL SOCIETY, Parochial School, Cuckney, Nottingham. March 30
COLLINGHAM, Josepu, Nottingham, Farmer May 14 Alcock, Mansfield
Cobden rd, Brighton. April 6
DORAN, THOMAS, Wigan May 1 Price, Wigan
DUFFETT, ANNE COLLINS, St John's Wood April 30 Newman & Co, Clement's inn CREDITORS' NOTICES.
ECCLESTONE, THOMAS, West Hampstead May 19 Newton & Co, t Marlborough st
ELLIOTT, ROBERT, Salford, Public house Manager May 2 Shippey & Jordan, ManUNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
FOWLIE, JOAN COUTTs, Buckland cres, Belsize pk May 7 Murray & Co, Birchin In
FRY, JANE AUGUSTA, Hornchurch, Essex May 14 Henderson & Co, Philpot In
Fyffe, ELIZABETH GRAHAM, Cambridge tce, Hyde Park May 14 Verrall & Borlase, Dallas, Preston
Brighton PURBOTT, CHARLES, Great St Helen's, Merchant May 6 Still v Purrott, Stirling, J
GABRIEL, JOHN TOM, Stafford pl, Buckingham gate May 18 Murray, Warwick st, Bolton & Co, Temple gdns, Temple
Regent st SHADFORTH, ROBERT, Sunderland May 2 Sivewright v Shadforth, Kekewich, J
GODFREY, WILLIAM Thomas, Ingham, Lincoln, Farmer May 31 Toynbee & Co, Lincoln Skelton, Lincoln's inn fields
Goody, Thomas, Copford, Essex, Innkeeper May 20 Jones & Son, Colchester
HALES, EDWARD, Tunbridge Wells May 15 Tilleards, Lombard ct
IALER, CHARLES RICHARD Curzon, Huyton, Lancs, Manure Manufacturer May 12 Yates
& Co, Liverpool
Joxes, Thomas, Newtown, Montgomery, Timber Merchant June 1 Powell, Newtown UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.
Jones, Walter WILLIAM, West Hartlepool, Sailor May 31 Langley & Elliot, Stock
ton on Tees
LAKE, ALMERIA, Maidenhead, Berks May 5 Tylee & Co, Essex st, Strand
Leather, GEORGE HENRY, Bradford May 30 Mossman & Co, Bradford
LEAVER, Rev WILLIAN HEYBY ACOME, Cooling Rectory, nr Rochester May 1 Marris & ATKINS, EMILY Clara, Dinan, France May 14 St Barbe & Co, Delahay st, Westminster Browojohn, Quality ct, Chancery lane BATTERSBY, ROBERT WILLIAM, Scarborough June 1 Tate & Co, Scarborough
MACDONALD, JOHN CORSIE, Singapore, Straits Settlements May 20 Alexander &
Robertson, Aberdeen BEARD, EMIA, Hednesford, Stafford April 30 Crump & Barrows, Walsall
MILLEB, Susan Page, Longport, Stafford May 7 Marshall & Ashwell, Stoke upon
Trent BECK, MABY, Barrow in Furness May 15 Townsend, Barrow in Furness
MONEY-SHEWAN, GEORGE, Trieste, Austria May 7 Maddisons, King's Arms yard BEDDINGTON, Bram LEOPOLD, Cornwall ter, Regent's Park May 16 Montagu & Co, Moses, RICHARD Hexey, Birmingham, Labourer May 7 Blackham & Taylor, BirmingBucklersbury
ham BILLIAT, HANNAH, Hartford, Huntingdon April 26 Hunnybun & Sons, Huntingdon
MULLINGS, ELIZABETH FRANCES, Bath May 10 Hertslet, Hornsey rise BOND, MARGARET, Lower Edmonton May 8 JN Mason & Co, Gresham st
NEEDHAM, WILLIAM HENRY, Sheffield, Carting Contractor May 16 Webster & Styring, BYATT, WILLIAJ, Alton, Stafford May 2 Cull & Brett, Cheadle, Stoke on Trent