Page images
PDF
EPUB

LAW

[ocr errors]

ME:

LA

HOLT, GRANGE Owen, Nassau st, Regent st, Commercial SMITH, Thomas HENRY, Cardiff, Ironmonger Cardiff Pet AW FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY,
Traveller May 3 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

April 12 Ord April 18
HORWOOD, FREDERICK, Yardley, Worcester, Boot Maker | SPILLER, CHARLES HENBY, Bristol, Beerhouse Keeper

114, CHANCERY-LANE, London,

April 12th, 1893. May 5 at 11 174, Corporation st, Birmingham

Bristol Pet April 6 Ord April 22

NOTICE is HEREBY GIVEN that the ANNUAL GENERAL JAMES, CHARLES EDWARD HALL, Greenwich May 3 at 12.30 STILLWELL, HENRY JAMES, East Ham, Builder High MEETING of the Shareholders of the Law FIBE INSUBA NCE 24, Railway app, London Bridge

Court Pet April 6 Ord April 21 Jenkins, Oliver, Cardiff, Grocer May 5 at 11 Off Rec, SYMONDS, Josiah NORMAN, Horbury, Yorks, Fancy Draper LANE, ON TUESDAY the 3rd day of May next, to elect

SOCIETY will be held at the Society's HOUSE, CHANCERY 29, Queen st, Cardiff

Wakefield Pet April 22 Ord April 23

ten Directors in the room of the like number of Directors JONES, WILLIAM, Quarter Bach, Carmarthen, Butcher MayWaddie, ALFRED GORDON, Liverpool, American Cheese 4 at 3 Off Rec, 4, Queen st, Carmarthen

Importer Liverpool Pet March 22 Ord April 22

who go out by rotation; to elect four Auditors in the room KENNA, John, Leeds May 4 at 11 Off Rec, 22, Park row,

of the like number who retire ; and for general purposes. WILLIAMS, JAMES, Burrow in Furness, Dock Gateman

The Chair will be taken at One o'clock precisely. The Leeds

Ulverston Pet April 22 Ord April 22 KEYBURN, JOSEPH, Bolton, Commercial Traveller May 4 at WOOD, Joun Sadler, Coleman st, Chartered Accountant them, may be inspected by the Shareholders for 14 days

Accounts of the Society, with the Auditors' Report upon 11 16, Wood st, Bolton Meadows, HENRY, Leicester, Boot Manufacturer May 3 YOUNG, JAMES, Thornton le Beans, Yorks Northallerton previously to the Annual Meeting and during one month at 12.30 Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester

Pet April 6 Ord April 22 MIDDLEDITCH, BENJAMIN, Denston, Suffolk, Builder May

The following Directors retire by rotation, are eligible, 11 at 10 Off Rec, 5, Petty Cury, Cambridge

and offer themselves for re-election :

Sir William James Farrer. MOULD, ENOCH, JOSEPH Enoch MOULD, BENJAMIN MOULD,

COMMON DISEASES.

Harry Wilmot Lee, Esq. Joshua MOULD, CALEB EPHRATAH MOULD, and Isaac

William Dawes Freshfield, Esq Sir Richard Nicholson. MOULD, Cheshire, Colliery Proprietors | May 5 at 11 Off

4.-THE LIVER.

William Alexander Tooke Richard Pennington, Esq.
Hallowes, Esq.

George Ernest Steward, E8T.
Rec, 23, King Edward st, Macclesfield
The liver is the largest organ in the body, and has Lord Hobhouse.

Edward Hugh Whitehead, Nasu, HENRY WALTER, Shurdington, Glos May 5 at 4.30 multifarious duties to perform in the internal economy of

Charles Plumptre Johnson, Esq. County Court bldgs, Cheltenham

ti digestive system. Aft the stomach it is the most PadFIELD, HENRY THOMAS, Frome, Somersets May 4 at 12 abused of all the digestive organs. It is inflamed and

Esq. Off Rec, Baldwin st, Bristol

The Auditors retiring are :hardened by the abuse of alcohol, and its functions are PLATNAUER, ALBERT Louis, and PERCY Louis PLATNAUER,

James Frederick Burton, Esq. hindered and impaired by the tannic acid, the outcome of Birmingham, Wholesale Jewellers May 6 at 11

John Henry Hortin, Esq. 174, tea-drinking. Errors in diet lead to a diminished secretion

William Tanner Neve, Esq. Corporation st, Birmingham

of bile. It becomes torpid and sluggish, and the defects PRyce, HENRY CHABLES, Dowlais, Glam, Bootmaker May react on the blood-current – deleterious products are

Charles Robert Roberts West, Esq. 4 at 1265, High st, Merthyr Tydfil carried into the circulation-the skin becomes muddy and

who are eligible and offer themselves for re-election. RICHARDS, WILLIAM Frank, Didsbury, Lancs, Plumber yellow, the tongue furred. Life becomes a burden and

By order of the Board of Directors, May 3 at 10.15

GEORGE WILLIAM BELL, Off Rec, County chmbrs, Market pl, the victim says “Life is not worth living.” He flies lo

Secretary. Stockport

drugs, blue pill, and other quack nostrums, and finds a SAMUELS, JOSEPH, Stratford, Tailor May 5 at 2.30 Bank- temporary relief, and a rebound to a state worse than ruptcy bldge, Carey st

before ; destroys his digestion by nauseous medicines and Tuns Hotel, Durham

cranky, and out of sorts. He never pauses to consider the SMITH, Thomas HENRY, Cardiff, Ironmonger May 5 at

of Christ Church, continues to PREPARE for all Legal why and the wherefore, but continues to either doctor 11.30 Off Rec, 29, Queen st, Cardiff himself, or is doctored by others, into a confirmed melan

Examinations by Day, Evening, or Post. STILLWELL, HENRY JAMES, East Ham, Essex, Builder choly invalid, who invariably shuffles off the mortal coil of

Latest Successes.-Bar Examination, 1897—44 sent up, May 5 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st a miserable life through making his stomach a receptacle

39 passed ; June, 1897, LL.B. Cambridge gained by a pupil; THORP, CHARLES GLOVER, Nottingham, Physician May 3 for all the so-called liver cures in the pharmacopeia.

Solicitors' Final, 2 in both passed. at 11 Off Rec, 4, Castle pl, Park st, Nottingham There is only one method to maintain the liver in good

Address, 11, New-court, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. TRUSCOTT, ELIZABETH ALICE HARRIS, Wadebridge, Corn working order, and that is attention to Diet and Exercise.

wall May 3 at 12 Off Rec, Boscawen st, Truro Happy is the man or woman who does not know they have WADDIE, ALFRED GORDON, Liverpool, American Cheese a liver ! Unless this mighty organ duly performs its

E. BRANDRETH, 34, Rue d'Hauteville, Importer May 4 at 2.30 Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, principal function of secreting bile, a whole army of

Paris, has made special arrangements for carrying Liverpool troubles arise.

out the formalities prescribed under the New Regulations WAKEFIELD, HARRY, Chedworth, Glos, Farmer May 5 at It cannot be done with medicine.

relating to Public Companies in France. Consultations in 3.15 County Court bldgs, Cheltenham It can, however, be done with a perfect food beverage,

matters of Civil and Criminal Proce lure after 4 daily WEEKS, EDWIN Thomas, Plymouth, Confectioner May 9 such as Dr. Tibbles Vi-Cycoa, which posses ses exceptional during term. at 12 6, Atheneum ter, Plymouth

vitalizing properties. It will save your digestion part of West, THOMAS, Liverpool, Accountant May 6 at 2 30 its work, and is far more nourlshing and sustenant than tea AW.-Wanted at once, Unadmitted Clerk Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

or the ordinary cocoa, whilst it possesses a tonic and
recuperative force possessed by neither.

capable of superintending litigation of large Colon ial
ADJUDICATIONS.
Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa

firm of solicitors; good salary and passage out.--- Apply,

pleasant and palatable, and ADDINGI.EY, SAMUEL, Knottingley, Yorks, Glass Bottle embodying as it does the numerous principles contained

stating age, experience, and salary required, to C. R., c/o in Malt, ops, Kola, and Cocoa, it imparts nourishment

Messrs. J. T. Segrue, Ltd., Gresham House, É.C. Manufacturer Wakefield Pet March 17 Ord April and builds up'strength. As a Food Beverage it is invalu21

able. ASHFORD, FRANCIS RICHARD, Bideford, Devons, Butcher Barnstaple Pet April 22 Ord April 22

grocers, and stores, or from Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, Ashwin, GERALD, Brockley, Kent, Solicitor's Clerk Green Limited, 60, 61, and 62, Bunhill-row, London, E.C.

taking entire charge of general business, but with special wich Pet April 21 Ord April 21 As a test of its merit a dainty simple tia of Dr. Tibbles'

acquaintance with Chancery practice. - Reply, stating BAYLY, GEORGE BRAGGE, West Brompton High Court

previous engagements and salary asked, by letter to X. A., Vi-Cocoa will be sent free on application to any addr ess,

if Pet March 15 Ord April 22

c/o Crossley, Moir, & Co., 57, Coleman-street, E.C. when writing (a postcard will do) the reader will name the BENBOW, GEORGE MORGAN, Llanidloes, Montgomery,

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. Tailor Newtown Pet April 16 Ord April 21

TO SOLICITORS.-A Banker and Financier BRAGG, ROBERT, Clapham Wandsworth Pet March 25 Ord April 21

EFFINGHAM WILSON, undertaking suitable for limited company; would purchase BBICE, ELIJAH Henry, Highbury, Cab Proprietor High

Court Pet March 11 Ord April 22
CARSWELL, WILLIAM DAVID, Felling on Tyne, Durham,

-A. R., “ Solicitors' Journal” Office.

11, ROYAL EXCHANGE, LONDON, E.C. Travelling Jeweller Newcastle on Tyne Pet April 21

Ord April 21
ENGLAND, JOHN, Boroughbridge, Yorks, Saddler York
Pet April 21 Ord April 21

THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER. James Whalley, 6, Child's-place, Temple-bar, in 1859.-Box GÁRDNER, DOUGLAS, and EDWARD BERTRAN HARTLEY,

59, “ Solicitors' Journal" Office, 27, Chancery-'ane. Birmingham, Engineers Birmingham Pet Feb 19

Price 2s. Bd. net. Ord April 22

CATALOGUES GRATIS AND POST-FREE. GLEDRILL, Tom, Burnley, Cabdriver Burnley Pet April

21 Ord April 21 GLUCKSTEIN, SAMUEL MONTAGUE, Queen Victoria st, Jour

REEVES & TURNER,

sion in the City; could take over existing offices.-R. F., nalist High Court Pet March 25 Ord April 20

“Solicitors' Journal” Office, 27, Chancery-lane. GRAHAM, FREDERICK, Ivybridge, Devon, China Dealer LAW BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS.

Plymouth Pet March 30 Ord April 20
HANCOCK, WALTER, Biddulph, Staffs, Grocer Macclesfield

YLERK requires Situation to Assist in the

Libraries Valued or purchased. Pet April 20 Ord April 20

various departments of a solicitor's office; age 23; 9 HOBBINS, SAMUEL Wass, Stourton, Lincs, Farmer High A Large Stock of second-hand Reports and Text-book years' experience in solicitor's office ; shorthand.-ÅRNOLD, Court Pet July 17 Ord April 22

always on Sale.

22, Foubert's-place, W.
HOLT, GRANGE OWEN, Nassau st, Regent st, Commercial
Traveller High Court Pet April 21 Ord April 21

100, CHANCERY LANE & CAREY STREET.
JONES, WILLIAM, Quarter Bach, Carmarthens, Butcher
Carmarthen Pet April 20 Ord April 20
Just published, price 59. 60, net. ; postage 3d. extra.

doing Admiralty business, by Solicitor (January KEYBURN, Joseph, Bolton, Traveller Boltoa Pet April 21

Final, not admitted, retained where articled in City office); Ord April 21

A SUPPLEMENT

has given close attention to office work; moderate salary. LEECH, CHARLES JOHN FREDERICK, Burton on Trent, Hair

TO THE SECOND EDITION OF THE

- Address, Navis, Wilkes' Advertising Offices, 29, Ludgatedresser Burton on Trent Pet April 22 Ord April 22

hill, LEFEVER, WALTER ALEXANDER, Hackney rd, Timber

LAW OF COPYHOLDS AND CUSTOMARY
Merchant High Court Pet March 17 Ord April 23
LITTLEWOOD, EDGAR ALBERT, Great Yarmouth, General

TENURES OF LAND,"
Dealer Great Yarmouth Pet April 23 Ord April 23

with general experience.- Apply by letter, statiog LORD, James, Byfield, Northamptons, Butcher Northamp

age, experience, and salary required, to x. 'Y, Z., Osmond ton Pet April 6 Ord April 19

COPYHOLD ACT, 1894,

& Co., Ironmonger-lane, E.C. MEADOWS, Henry, Leicester, Boot Manufacturer Leices

WITH
ter Pet April 22 Ord April 22
MOBBIS, ELEANOR, South Shields, Saddler Newcastle on
NOTES ON THE SECTIONS THEREOF AND AN

10 TRUSTEES and Others.-Advertiser, Tyne Pet March 17 Ord April 21

ADDENDUM TO THE TREATISE, PLATNAUER, ALBERT Louis, and PERCY LOUIS PLATNAUER,

bution of a considerable estate, largely realty, seeks 1 Birmingham, Wholesale Jewellers Birmingham Pet

similar post'; bankers' and professional references of the April 6 Ord April 21

C. 1. ELTON, Q.C.,

highest character.-Address, W. L., c/o Streets, 30, RICHARDS, JOHN SAMUEL, Nottingham, Timekeeper

Cornhill.
Nottingham Pet April 22 Ord April 22
RICHELIEU, THOMAS, Darlington, Journeyman Boiler
Smith, Leeds Pet April 21 Ord April 21

The work complete, with Supplement, 308.; cash, 24s.
RIDEAL, CHARLES FREDERICK, Victoria st, Publisher High

the following Parcels of Freehold Ground-rents in the

bei Tibbles vi-Cocoa can be obtained from all chemists, Lamited Prepareeride solicitar , acelestion de

[graphic]

THE JUDICIAL TRUSTEES ACT,1896, AND TO ANO DO EF To Ruscelino mule busineamore chas

SOLICITOR desirous of increasing his con

CONTAINING THE

BY

AND

H. J. H. MACKAY, Barrister-at-Law. THE SUBURBAN PROPERTIES.CORE

SANDERS LANDN, Rotherham, Advertising Contractor WILDY & SONS, Law Publishers, biz, 2.50 16., 0296,€19, Lies and deat, and to a CD7 years'

LINCOLN'S-INN ARCHWAY, CAREY-STREET, LONDON, W.C.

purchase.

The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter

ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE.

VOL. XLII., No. 27.
INCORPORATED A.D. 1720.
FOR SEA, FIRE, LIFE AND ANNUITIES.
CHIEF OFFICE: ROYAL EXCHANGE, LONDON.
Fuxds, £4,000,000. Claius PAID, £38,000,000.

LONDON, MAY 7, 1898.
FIRE.
INSURANCES ARE GRANTED AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY FIRE on
PROPERTY of almost every description, at Moderate Rates.

The Editor cannot undertake to return rejected contributions, aud
LIFE.
DEATH DUTY POLICIES-Payment Direct to Revenue Authorities before grant copies should be kept of all articles sent by writers who are not on
of Probate.
Apply for Full Prospectus to

the regular staff of the JOURNAL.

E. R. HANDCOCK, Secretary. THE OLDEST & WEALTHIEST EXISTING MORTGAGE INSURANCE OFFICE.

Contents. THE LAW GUARANTEE AND TRUST SOCIETY,

CURRENT TOPICS

LAW SOOIXTIES ..........

473 LIMITED.

ESTATE DUTY AND THE DOCTRINE OF LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL................ 477
MERGER

464
LEGAL NEW8 ...............

478 SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL £1,000,000. PAID-UP £100,000.

The Late MR, N. T. LAWRENCE

COURT PAPERS..

478 FIDELITY GUARANTEES OF ALL KINDS. ADMINISTRATION AND LUNACY REVIEWS

WINDING UP NOTIORS

479 CORRESPONDENCE ...........

467
CREDITORS' NOTICES........

479 BONDS. MORTGAGE, DEBENTURE, LICENSE, AND CONTINGENCY

473 New ORDERS, &c.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.....

480 INSURANCE. TRUSTEESHIPS FOR DEBENTURE-HOLDERS, &c.

................ 461

465 ........... 466

x

X

V.

HEAD OFFICE: 49, Chancery-lane, W.C. | CITY OFFICE: 56, Moorgate-street, E.C.
IMPORTANT TO SOLICITORS

Cases Reported this Week.

469 In Drawing LEASES or MORTGAGES of

Roper v. Kaott
In the Solicitors' Journal,

472

Royal College of Surgeons, Re
LICENSED PROPERTY

Apthorpe v. Peter Schoenhofen Brewery
To see that the Insurance Covenants include a policy covering the risk of

Waverley Typewriter (Lim.), Re. Co.

470

D'Esterre v. Waverley Typewriter
LOSS OR FORFBITURE OF THE LICENSE.
Attorney - General Beech and

473

(Lim.) Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to Another

468 THE LICENSES INSURANCE CORPORATION AND Cronmire, Re. Ex parte Waud 468 GUARANTEE FUND, LIMITED,

Cuckfield Rural District Council v.

In the Weekly Reporter.

471

Goring 24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C.

Andrew v. St. Olave's Board of Work: 424

Du Cane and Nettlefold's Contract, Re 468 Mortgage: Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, without

Calcraft v. Guest

428 Reina, Re. Frost v. Lucas 469

421

Douglas Norman & Co., In re ............ special valuation and at low rates.

Isaacs v. Towell

463

Nickels, In re. Nickels v, Nickels. 422 ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY. Reg. v. Bird and others. Ex parte

Prior v. The Slaithwaite Spinning Co. 472

Piazzi Smyth, In the Goods of

428 Established 1824. Capital, £5,000,000 Sterling.

Needes

471

Ruabon Steamship Co. v. London HEAD OFFICE: BARTHOLOMEW LANE, LONDON.

417

Assurance

Reg. v. Cotham and Another and
Chairman: RIGHT HON, LORD ROTHSCHILD.

470

420

Van Grutten v, Foxwell

Webb. Ex parte Same LODON BRANCHES: 1 ST. JAMES'S STRW.;. 63, CHANCERS LANE, W.C.; Reg. V. Edwards

472

Wyatt (Deceased), In the Goods of 425
LIFE AND FIRE ÍNSURANCES AT MODERATE Rates.
Life Policies free from Restrictions, with Perfect Security and Liberal Bonuses.
Special forms of Policies have been prepared to provide for payment of ESTATE DUTIES.
LEASEHOLD AND SINKING FUND POLICIES.

CURRENT TOPICS.
Full Prospectuses on application.
ROBERT LEWIS, Chief Secretary.

WE PRINT elsewhere an order for the re-transfer from Mr. LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE Justice BARNES of six actions to Mr. Justice STIRLING and of SOCIETY

seven actions to Mr. Justice ROMER, and of one action to Mr. Justice BYRNE.

[ocr errors]

ESTABLISHED 1836.

THE LAND TRANSFER Rules were not obtainable at the Queen's

Printers on Thursday last, but a limited number of copies were FUNDS

£ 3,000,000

to be had at the Land Registry. No one seems to have observed INCOME

£ 390,000

that the Gazette of the 5th of April last contained the usual

notice under the Rules Publication Act, 1893, that draft rules YEARLY BUSINESS

£1,000,000

had been prepared under the Land Transfer Act, 1897, and that BUSINESS IN FORCE

- £11,700,000 "copies may be obtained on application at the Land Registry,

Lincoln'e-inn-fields." THE PERFECTED SYSTEM of Life Assurance is peculiar to this Society and embraces every modern advantage.

WE HOPE next week to commence a series of articles dealing PERFECTED MAXIMUM POLICIES.

with the general scope and contents of the Land Transfer Rules.

In the meantime, returning to the portion of the rules relating WITHOUT PROFITS.

to costs, we discover an important rule, 261 (e), which was overThe Rates for these Whole Life Policies are very moderate.

looked in our observations last week, and which provides

that where, on the occasion of a purchase of unregistered land, Age | Premium Age Premium Age | Premium

the purchaser's solicitor receives the remuneration fixed by the

Remuneration Order, his remuneration for registering a £1 78% 30 £1 16 % / 40 £2 10 %

possessory title thereon shall not exceed £2 28. in cases where

the value does not exceed £5,000, and in cases where the value £ 1,000 POLICY WITH BONUSES

exceeds £5,000 shall be £5 58.; so that practically the scale for According to last results.

"first registration with a possessory title," to which we referred

last week, does not really apply to the case of a purchase. Valuation at 27 p.c. :-Hm. Table of Mortality.

Other rules provide for the retention of the negotiating fee, and

for the remuneration prescribed not including the " disburseDuration

ments, extra work, business, or proceedings which, under section Amount of Policy £1,199 £1,438 £1,724 £2,067

4 of the Remuneration Order, are noi to be included in the

remuneration prescribed by Schedule 1 of that Order." Next Bonus as at 31st December, 1901.

THE RULES under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, OFFICES: 10, FLEET STREET, LONDON. which have recently appeared, shew that the efforts of the

27

20

10 yrs.

20 yrs.

30 yrs.

40 yrs.

Courcil of the Incorporated Law Society to procure the modifi THE DECISION of ROMER, J., in Harrop v. The Mayor of Ossett cation of the singular provisions affecting solicitors originally (1898, 1 Ch. 525) settles a point of great importance to public contemplated by the framers of the Act have been attended with authorities and to persons engaged in litigation with them. great success. It will be remembered that, by paragraph 5 of The decision is that the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, the second schedule of the Act, it is provided that "Rules of applies to all actions against public authorities or their officers Court

may make provision for the appearance in any arbitration in the Chancery Division, and not merely to actions of tort or under this Act of any party by some other person. It is now actions in which damages are claimed ; and that therefore judg. provided, by rule 32, that a party to any arbitration may appear ment in any such action for the defendants carries with it the (a) in person, or by a member of his family; (6) by a solicitor right to costs as between solicitor and client. The Act in quesacting generally in the matter for such party, but not by a tion is intended to be a substitute for a number of enactments solicitor retained as an advocate by such first-mentioned solicitor; relating to various public authorities and prescribing the notice () by counsel; (d) by a person in the permanent and exclusive of action to be given and the time within which such actions are employment of the party; (e) in the case of a company or cor- to be brought, and these enactments are repealed by section 2 of poration, by any director, secretary, officer, or person in the the Act. The substituted provisions differ materially from the permanent and exclusive employment of the company or cor- repealed enactments : notice of action is abolished in every case; poration ; (f) by leave of the judge or arbitrator, by any a uniform period of six months from the cause of action is preofficer or member of any society or other body of persons of scribed ; and the new provision which was the subject of the which such party is a member or with which he is connected" decision of ROMER, J., is added. The words of the Act are very [what do these last words mean?]; or (9) by leave of the judge wide ; stated shortly they cover“ any action, prosecution, or other or arbitrator, by any other person. And the rule also provides proceeding" brought against a public authority or their officers that no person other than a solicitor who appears or acts on in respect of anything done in the execution of an Act of Parliabehalf of any party in any arbitration under the Act shall be ment or public duty or in respect of any neglect or default entitled to have or recover from such party any fee or reward for in such execution ; and clause® () enacts that “wherever in 80 appearing or acting other than such travelling expenses and any such action a judgment is obtained by the defendant, it (in the case of a workman or a member of his family) allowance for shall carry costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client.” time (if any) as shall be allowed by the judge or arbitrator ; Amongst the repealed enactments is section 264 of the Public fees of counsel being excepted. These provisions appear to go Health Act, 1875, which enacted that a writ or process should as far in favour of professional assistance as could be done in not be sued out against a local authority or their officers in face of the provision of paragraph 5 of the second schedule. respect of acts or omissions under that Act until one month

after notice of the cause of action had been given, and that the

action should be commenced within six months after the cause THE FOUR QUESTIONS put to the jury by PHILLIMORE, J., on the of action. It was held by the Court of Appeal in Flower v. Low trial of Mrs. CAMILLA NICHOLLS for manslaughter were un

Leyton Local Board (25 W. R. 545, 5 Ch. D. 347) that section 264 doubtedly the correct ones. In effect they were (1) Was there did not apply where the object of the action was to restrain the coma duty of the prisoner towards the deceased ? (2) Was the mission of a nuisance, notwithstanding that compensation for past prisoner guilty of a breach of that duty ? (3) Was the death of damage was also claimed. The ground upon which the court the deceased caused or accelerated by such breach of duty ? (4)

seems to have mainly relied was that if the section were held to Was the deceased unable to escape from the prisoner, and so to apply, the defendant authority would have full liberty to continue avoid the consequences of the prisoner's breach of duty ? The the nuisance, and perhaps to cause irreparable mischief during the jury were charged that in order to convict the prisoner they month after the notice of the cause of action. This reason is no must find an answer in the affirmative to each of these ques- longer applicable, for the Act of 1893 contains no provision tions. Now, there is no room for doubt that it is the duty of a requiring notice of action to be given. There seems little doubt mistress to supply her domestic servant with sufficient food to that the decision of ROMER, J., is correct; there is no indication support life and health. It is also quite clear that it is no that the operation of the new Act is confined to any particular defence to a charge of manslaughter that the death took place class of actions, and the actual words are wide enough to emfrom the effects of a disease which must have caused death brace every kind of proceedings. There is even an indication sooner or later, if the wrongful act or omission of the accused that the Act was intended to apply to actions for an injunction, shortened the life of tạe deceased. The la bearing on the first for clause (c) which commences “whero the proceeding is an three questions has been often commented upon judicially, and action for damages" and makes provisions as to the effect of is well-established. The fourth point, however, has not so often tender of amends, concludes with the words “but this probeen considered. Suppose a master, whose duty it is to feed his vision shall not affect costs on any injunction in the action.” servant, refuses to give that servant any food at all. The

The question involved must of necessity be of frequent occur. natural result would be, not that the servant would die of star- rence, having regard to the wide terms of the Act and the mass vation, but that he would at once leave the house and probably authorities, to all of which the Act of 1893 and thở decision in

of repealed enactments relating to a great variety of public sue his master for breach of contract. Therefore, it is in order to convict the master of manslaughter, not only to show Harrop v. 088ett will apply. that the deceased servant died of starvation, but that he was unable to leave the service if he chose. This was well expressed by Erle, C J., in a case of Reg. v. Smith (13 W. R. 816), which THE MALICIOUS Injuries to Property Act, 1861, after dealing in many of its features closely resembled the recent case. He with a large number of cases of injury to property of various said : " If a person having the custody of another neglects to kinds, provides, by section 52, that " whosoever shall wilfully or supply that other with food so that death ensues, it is a criminal maliciously commit any damage, injury, or spoil to or upon any offence. But the law is also clear that if such person, having a real or personal property whatsoever," in any case not otherwise free will, chooses to stay in a service where bad food and lodg- provided for, shall be guilty of an offence punishable suming is provided, and death is caused thereby, the criminal marily. About nine years ago Hall v. Richardson (51 J. P. 349) responsibility does not attach. The question is then, whether came before a Divisional Court upon the construction of this the deceased was eo helpless in mind and body as to be unable section. In that case a milk-carrier had accidentally spilt to withdraw herself from the prisoner's dominion.” The Court some of his master's milk, and in order to escape blame, but not for Crown Cases Reserved held in this case that there was no with a fraudulent intent, had filled up the churn with water, evidence to support the finding of the jury that the servant was and sold the diluted milk to his master's customers. He was unable to withdraw, and so the conviction was quashed. In charged with wilfully and maliciously committing damage to Mrs. Nicholls' case the jury were clearly satisfied that the un- the milk. The magistrates refused to convict, and, on appeal to fortunate girl was so broken by illness, deprivation, and ill- the High Court, the late Lord Chief Justice and Mathew,

J., treatment that she was entirely under the dominion of her mis- upheld the decision of the magistrates, and held that the tress, and unable to exercise her free will. In this opinion most accused was not liable to conviction. Their grounds for 90 persons who read the evidence will probably concur.

holding were that, although the milk-carrier did what he did

before he started on his round and the milk was thrown away. such costs are to be paid.”

intentionally, and in that sense wilfully, still he had no guilty him at 854, but stated a special case. The Divisional Court mind, and did not intend to injure any person, least of all bis were of a contrary opinion, but the Court of Appeal and now master, who had in fact suffered no pecuniary loss. Now, it is the House of Lords have supported the arbitrator. It would to be noticed that the words of section 52 are “ wilfully or be difficult, indeed, if the words "hold firm are to have any maliciously,” not "wilfully and maliciously," as in other sections effect given to them, to decide otherwise. An underwriter's last of the statute. It seems, therefore, that if a person does an act thought is to hold any shares firm. He hopes to take his comintentionally, which in the natural course of things causes damage mission and see the shares safely absorbed by the public. An to property, it is not necessary to prove that he intended to injure agreement to take certain shares in any event is foreign to the any person ; and that it is quite sufficient to show that such an act spirit of the underwriting agreement, and is indeed a separate was done wilfully without also having to show that it was done contract. The underwriters who made such a contract were maliciously. The act which the milkman committed was clearly bound to carry it out, and, in addition, to take up the shares done intentionally, in order to benefit himself at the expense of properly assigned to them under their underwriting agreements. his master's customers, and it obviously did damage the milk. The defendant's share, therefore, had been properly reduced to If, then, it was not wilful damage to property, it is very hard the lower of the two figures mentioned above. to see what the words mean. For these reasons Hall v. Richardson has generally been considered an unsatisfactory decision, and last Saturday it was overruled by a Divisional Court, consisting of seven judges, in the case of Roper v. Knott. In this

SECTION 43 of the Licensing Act, 1872, provides that any case also the accused person was a milk-carrier who had added person who appears before the licensing justices and opposes water to his master's milk, but he had done so with the the grant of a new licence, and no other person, may appear and fraudulent intention of putting money into his own pocket at oppose the confirmation of such grant. The same section gives the expense of the buyers of the diluted milk, though with no quarter sessions power to “make rules as to the proceedings personal malice against his master. His fraud was discovered to be adopted for confirmation of new licences, and the costs to The magistrate considered himself bound by Hall v. Richardson, such costs are to be paid.' Probably almost every quarter and so dismissed the information, but stated a case. When the sessions has made a rule requiring any person who intends to case came on in the usual course, it was referred to a special oppose the confirmation of a grant to give a written notice to court, who allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the the applicant, and also to the clerk of the peace, within a magistrate. This court has now interpreted section 52, and certain number of days of the grant, of his intention to oppose held that it applies whenever wilful damage is done to property, and of the grounds of his opposition. The standing orders of even though there is no intention to injure the owner, and the quarter sessions for the county of London contain such a even where the owner is not in fact injured; and that the rule, the number of days being seven. They also by another section aims at damage to property independently of loss to any rule provide that any such intending opposer shall enter into a

be person. Now, although it is not necessary to prove malice in recognizance with one surety to pay such costs as he may order to convict under this section, might it not be argued that ordered to pay, Such rules, if they go beyond rules of proin both these cases the act was in fact done maliciously? In cedure and seek to put restrictions upon rights bestowed upon a each case the act was done deliberately, knowing that the con- person by Act of Parliament, must be ultra vires. In the recent sequence would necessarily be to impose an adulterated article case of Reg. v. Bird and Others, Ex parte Deedes, the validity of

The upon the buyer, and knowing that the consequence might be to these two rules of the county of London was considered. submit the master to a prosecution for adulteration. It is sub- Act clearly confers upon a person who has opposed the grant a mitted that an act committed under such circumstances is done right to oppose when the grant comes before the confirming with a guilty mind, and that therefore in law it is done authority. No notice whatever need be given of intention to maliciously.

oppose the grant at the licensing meeting, and anyone has a right to oppose.

It is only those who do so oppose, however,

who have a right to oppose at the subsequent proceedings. THE DISTINCTION between applying for shares and underwriting Undoubtedly, quarter sessions can make rules " as to the proshares has been illustrated in an interesting manner by the case ceedings”-ie , rules of practice—but it is going beyond a rule of Sydney Harbour Collieries (Limited) v. Earl Grey, decided by of practice to forbid a man to exerciso a right given him by the House of Lords last week. The plaintiff company was, in statute unless he gives certain notices, or in case he fails to find 1894, about to offer to the public 23,500 preference shares of some person willing to be his surety for a sum of money. A £10 each. The defendant underwrote 2,000 of the shares upon Divisional Court, accordingly, decided that their rules are ultra the terms that, if the public subscribed bond fide for the whole vires and granted a mindamus to the justices to rehear the of the shares, his responsibility was to cease. If they subscribed application in question and to hear the opposer who had not any smaller amount, he was to take up such number of sbares observed the rule. This is a decision which clerks of the peace as would constitute his pro rata contribution with the other will do well to notice. It may, however, be suggested that underwriters, to make up the difference between the total quarter sessions can practically effect the purpose of such rules amount subscribed by the public and the total amount under-by using their powers as to awarding costs. For example, it written. The whole of the 23,500 shares were underwritten, would probably be within the powers given them by section 43 and some of the underwriters had by their underwriting contracts to make a rule that an opposer who fails to give certain notices agreed to "hold firm" a certain number of the shares. The of his intention to oppose shall be in some way penalized as to outside public applied for only 4,134 shares, and, in apportion- costs. ing the balance among the underwriters, differences arose as to the meaning of the expression “hold firm.” The company took the view that the shares to which the expression applied were to THE QUESTION whether a conveyance of land abutting on a be taken by the respective underwriters in satisfaction pro tanto of highway carries with it the right to the soil ad medium filum the shares which they were bound by their agreements to take up. viae was raised in the case of Re White's Charities before On this basis the quota of shares which the defendant had to ROMER, J. (reported ante, p. 429), under rather peculiar circumtake up was 1,470. The defendant, on the other hand, insisted stances. and incumbered with ancient rent-charges had that the agreement by some of the underwriters to “hold firm” been thrown into a highway, which was a street in the City of certain shares was separate from their underwriting agreements, London, under statutory powers, in order to widen the street. and that the shares to which the words were applied were to The Corporation of London afterwards sold property abutting be reckoned with those subscribed for by the outside public on this street, subject to this rent-charge, but without taking This substantially increased the number of shares so subscribed, any covenant from the purchaser for its payment, and it was and correspondingly diminished the number to be taken by the sought to establish that the purchaser was legally liable to pay defendant. The matter was referred to Mr. Justice CHIANNELL this rent-charge as terre tenant of the soil, ad medium filum viae as arbitrator, before his elevation to the Bench, and he, deciding under the conveyance of the property to him. In Micklethwait in favour of the defendant, fixed the shares to be taken up by's. Newlay Bridge Co. (33 Ch. D. 133, 145), the general rule is

thus stated by COTTON, L.J.: "The rule of construction is tees of the settlement her life interest in all the property now well settled, that where there is a conveyance of land, even appointed to H. BEECH, and such surrender was expressed to be although it is described by reference to a plan, and by colour, to the intent that the life interest might merge in the remainder and by quantity, if it is said to be bounded on one side either of H. Beech, and that, accordingly, the trustees might thence, by a river or by a public thoroughfare, then on the true con forth hold the property in trust for H. BEECH. Mrs. Beech died struction of the instrument half the bed of the river or half of in August, 1896, and the Inland Revenue Commissioners claimed the road passes, unless there is enough in the circumstances or that the trust property passed upon her death and so becams enough in the expressions of the instrument to show that that is liable to estate duty. not the intention of the parties.” Beckett v. Corporation of The sections of the Finance Act, 1894, on which the claim Leeds (20 W. R. 454, L. R. 7 Ch. 421) was cited as an authority was based are section 1 and section 2, sub-section 1 (6). Section for treating conveyances of land abutting on streets in towns as 1 in general terms imposes the estate duty upon the principal exceptions to the rule thus broadly stated, but ROMER, J., held value of all property, settled or not settled, which passes on that there was neither reason nor authority for the suggested the death of any person, and section 2 (1) specifies various exception, and showed that it would be difficult, if not impossible, classes of property which are to be deemed to be included in to define its extent. Another argument was pressed on the the phrase "property passing on the death.” The first class court-viz., that as the corporation owned the soil beyond the consists of property of which the deceased was at his death commedium filum the presumption, which arose when the vendor was potent to dispose; the second of "property in which tho owner ad medium filum, was excluded. But ROMER, J., thought deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the that the effect of that was not to negative the presumption, but death of the deceased, to the extent to which a benefit accrues to extend it so as to pass the actual interest of the conveying or arises by the cesser of such interest.” For the present party. His lordship therefore held that the purchaser from purpose the other classes mentioned are not material. "But if the corporation was under a legal liability to pay the rent- these provisions are applied to the circumstances just narrated, charges.

and if at the same time the legal effect of the circumstances is allowed to be governed by the well-betuled doctrine of merger, it is at once evident that no duty is payable.

The life THE FIRST reported application under Part I. of the Land interest of Mrs. Beech was by the deed of December, Transfer Act, 1897, was made to BARNES, J., in Re Barnett, and 1894, merged in the reversion. After the execution resulted in the ruling that, where administration is asked for of the deed the life interest had ceased to exist, and the trustees only in respect of real estate and the title of the applicant as of the settlement held the property in trust for H. BEEC I heir-at-law is clear, notice need not be given to the next-of-kin absolutely. Mrs. BEECH retained no property, and the trust of the deceased. Under section 1 real estate, notwithstanding funds were clearly not property of which she was at the time of any testamentary disposition, now devolves upon the personal her death competent to dispose. She had no power over them representatives, and probate and letters of administration may at all. In the same way she had no interest in the trust funds, be granted in respect of real estate only, although there is no which ceased at her death. Prior to December, 1894, she had personal estate. But the expression “real estate for this pur- an interest, and, had matters remained unaltered, this would pose does not include copyholds. Under section 2 (4) the court have been in 1896 an interest ceasing on her death, so that in granting administration is to have regard to the rights and estate duty on the principal value of the property would have interests of persons interested in the real estate of the deceased, become payable. But the state of affairs had been completely and his heir-at law, if not one of the next-of-kin, is to be changed by the surrender of December, 1894. It was at that equally entitled to the grant with the next-of-kin. In the date, and not at the death of Mrs. Beech in August, 1896, that present case the deceased, who was a bachelor, had died intes- her life interest ceased to exist, and this circumstance makes all tate, possessed of freehold and copyhold property, but not the difference. The estate duty is to be levied in cases where the possessed of any personal estate; and application was made by life interest ceases at the death, not where it ceases an indefinite his nephew and heir-at-law for a grant of administration of the period before death. freeholds. The next-of-kin had not been cited. Since the copy The Divisional Court (POLLOCK, B, and RIDLEY, J.) avoided holds were not in question and the evidence was clear as to this result by abolishing for the purpose of the Finance Act the there being no personal estate, BARNES, J., directed the grant to doctrine of merger, and this they did upon the grouod that the issue subject to formal evidence confirming the applicant's title, doctrine was a mere device of conveyancers. A taxing Act, but he intimated that where the title was doubtful notice to the said POLLOCK, B., is not to be construed in accordance with the next-of-kin should be given.

ordinary language of conveyancers, or with a view to giving effect to the principles on which conveyancers act, but with a

viow to carrying out the intention of the Act and its provisions ESTATE DUTY AND THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER. declined to allow that authorities relating to the surrender of

as expressed by its language. And similarly RIDLEY, J., The Court of Appeal have very satisfactorily disposed of the one interest and its merging in another had any relevance in theory propounded by the Divisional Court in Attorney-General deciding upon the meaning of the Finance Act. That, he v. Beech (46 W. R. 44), that the doctrine of merger is a mere said, was to be judged of by the clear and expressed object of conveyancer's device which cannot for a moment be allowed to the Act, and not by the rules of conveyancing. It has prohave any effect in derogation of the provisions of the Finance bably not before happened that conveyancers have been credited Act, 1894.

The circumstances which have given rise to the in this way with inventing for the purposes of their art prinlitigation are perfectly simple, and, but for the singular decision ciples of law. Conveyancers may take advantage of such prinjust referred to, it could not have been supposed that their ciples in order to bring about results which they desire, but the legal effect admitted of any doubt. Shortly stated they were as principles of law and the art of conveyancing are totally follows : By a settlement made in 1852 on the marriage of Mrs. distinct things. The true way of viewing the matter was put Beech that lady was entitled, in the event of her surviving he very clearly by CHITTY, L.J., at the end of bis judgment in the husband, to the income of the trust funds for life, with a powe present case, “In the judgments delivered in the Divisional of appointing the funds by deed or will among the children of Court,” he observed, "some observations were made on conveythe marriage. The husband died in 1885, There were two ancers and the rules of conveyancing. I am unable to see the children of the marriage, a daughter and the defendant, HOWARD bearing of those observations. Conveyancers did not invont BEECH. Part of the trust funds had been realized and advanced the rules of merger either at law or in equity, nor are thog to the daughter. By a deed of appointment, made in 1886, Mrs. responsible for them. Their fanction is to understand the BEECH appointed the funds so advanced to the daughter, and doctrine of merger and to apply it practically where it is subject to her life interest, she appointed the rest of the applicable.” property to the son. In December, 1894, the trustees of the That the doctrine of merger may still be used for the purpose settlement were WILLIAM Beech and the son, H. BEECH. By a of extinguishing a limited estate, and accelerating the estate in deed, dated in that month, Mrs. Besor surrendered to the trus- romainder expectant upon it, is shown very strikingly by the

« PreviousContinue »