« PreviousContinue »
not served any customers on the morning of the 11th of January before he in the property, plant, and business of the American company to the was taken into custody. The whole of the milk, after it had been so respondent company. In order to avoid any difficulty in connection with watered, was, in fact, damaged and spoiled, and was thrown away, and the Illinois State laws, which prevented alien corporations and persons from the loss therein amounted in value to the sum of ten shillings and eight- holding real property in that State, it was agreed between the respondent pence. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that in view of the company and the vendors that the American company chould be kept on decision in Hall v. Richardson (54 J. P. 345), the respondent could not, foot, and that the whole of the capital stock of the American company, under the said circumstances, be convicted of the offence. On behalf of except three shares of 100 dols. each, should be acquired by the respondent the appellant it was contended that the decision in Hall v. Richardson only company, and as a consequence the respondent company became in subapplied to a case where the milk had been spilt accidentally. The stance owners of all the property and assets of the American company. magistrate was of opinion that the respondent acted in a fraudulent In 1895 the net profits amounted to £66,266, and in the following year to way, and that bis object in ad ling water was to increase the bulk and to £63,970. Accordiog to the balance-sheet there was remitted to England put the money into ħis own pocket by £elling and not accounting for the between the 8th of April, 1895, and the 3rd of February, 1896, the sum surplus, but there was no malice towards or intention to injure the of £2,561 18s., and, after paying the company's expenses, £1,936 18. of appellant, the owner of the milk. He was doubtful whether the section this sum was distributed as dividend among the shareholders. Between was intended to apply to such injury or damage at all; but, even if that the 13th of April, 1896, and March, 1897, the sum of £3,256 was was so, le felt himself bound by the decision in Hall v. Richardson, and remitted to England, and of this sum £2,481 128. was distributed as accordingly dismissed the charge. The question for the opinion of the court dividend. The business of the brewery was exclusively carried on in the was whether, upon the above facts, the respondent could legally be con State of Illinois, U.S.A., and all the staff lived at Chicago. The sharevicted of the offence. For the appellant it was now contended that there holders were mostly persons resident in America, although some of them should bave been a conviction, inasmuch as if the natural and obvious resided in England and elsewhere. The powers of management of the consequence of doing a particular act is damage to property it can be no London board were in fact delegated to the managers of the brewery at answer on behalf of the person who does the act to say that he has no Chicago, who were the directors of the American company. The board intention to injure the property. The following cases were cited : Hall v. of directors met in London and had the power to dismiss any cr all of Richardson (54 J. P. 345), Reg. v Pemblidon (22 W.R. 553, L. R. 2 C. O. R. the managers, officials, and others carrying on the business in Chicago, 119), Ilamillon v. Bow (52 J. P. 726).
and had an absolute power to control not only the company's affairs The Court (Lord RUSSELL OF Killowen, C.J., and Day, Wills, generally but the business carried on in Chicago. The commissioners GRANTHAM, WRIGHT, KENNEDY, and CHANNELL, JJ.) allowed the found the following on the facts : (1) That the business carried on at appeal.
Chicago was carried on by, and was the business of, the respondent Lord RusseLL OF KILLOWBN, C.J., after stating the facts of the case, company, and that the profits made were their profits ; (2) that the said: The result of the respondent's action was damage to his master's | American company was the agent of the respondent company, who property. He acted with a fraudulent intention though he had no managed the business from their head office in London. The commis. pereonal malice against the appellant. Under these circumstances can sioners, however, considered themselves bound by the decision in he be convicted of an offence within section 52 of the Malicious Injuries to Bartholomay Brewing Co. v. Wyatt (1893, 2 Q. B. 499), and they accordingly Property Act, 1861. Section 51 deals with cases of injury, for which no reduced the assessment to the amount of the remittances to Englandpunishment was before provided, to an amount exceeding £5 committed viz., for the year ending the 5th of April, 1896, the sum of £2,561 188., unlawfully and maliciously." Now, Eection 52 differs from this and and for the year following to the sum of £3,256. The surveyor of taxes
Counsel on any other section in the Act, for it saye, “Whosoever shall wilfully or thereupon required the commissioners to state this case. maliciously commit any damage, injury, or spoil to or upon any real or
behalf of the Crown contended that the commissioners were wrong; the personal property whatsoever, either of a public or private nature, for company traded in England and was managed from a London office. He which no punishment is hereinbefore provided” may be committed and distinguished the case of Bartholomay Brewing Co. v. Wyatt (supra) from compelled to pay a fino not exceeding £5. It is clear the Legislature the present and submitted that on the authority of the San Paulo intended to draw a distinction between an act done "unlawfully and (Brazilian) Railway Co. v. Carter (1895, 1 Q. B. 580), affirmed by the House maliciously," which might be wilful but not malicious, and an act done of Lords (44 W. R. 336), income tax was payable on the assessment as " wilfully or maliciously.". Now, this is a case of injury on the findings made. On behalf of the company it was argued that the inference drawa of the magistrate. Was it wilful damage? The respondent committed by the court in the Bartholomay case, which was identical with the present, the act charged to him intending to do so-that is, he did it wilfully. A was not affected by the Sın Paulo case, since it was a question of fact man commits an act wilfully if he intentionally does a thing which which must be decided by the court in every case-namely, Where, during cauees an injury either with the intention of doing the injury or inten- the year of the assessment, was the business of the company in quežtion tionally does it knowing it will cause the injury. Taerefore I think this is actually carried on? a case of wilful damage within the meaning of section 52. We have now The Court (WRIGHT and ChanneLL, JJ.), upheld the contention of the to consider the case of Hall v. Richardson, on the authority of which the Crown. It was clear that though the profits were earned in the United magistrate dismissed the charge. We cannot shrink from considering States the trade was carried on in England. The staff in America was that case. There the act of diluting the milk was done wilsully, though appointed by the English company and the directors in England could it was not done with a fraudulent intention but to prevent loss to the dismiss any of the officials engaged at the brewery. In that state of owner in respect of some milk that had been accidentally spilt. We do things the observations in the judgments of the San Paulo case applied. not approve of the decision in that case. The error there is a confusion The delegating of authority to persons in America was but an exercising between damage tɔ the property and consequent loss to the owner. It by the English company of their supreme power. Execution stayed does not matter if there is or is not loss to the owner. The question is, pending appeal.- Counsel, Sir R. Webster, A.G., and Danckwerts ; Was the damage done by an act wilfully committed ? The next error is Asquith, Qo, and T. E. Scrut!on. SOLICITORS, The Solicitor for Inland that Lord Coleridge, C.J., seems to have been of opinion that there must Revenue ; Julius g. Thomas. be evidence of an intention to deprive somebody of property. It is not
[Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.] necessary to show that. Lastly, the learned judge seems to have thought that the section was limited to cases for which compensation may be REG. v. COTHAM AND ANOTHER, AND WEBB, Ex parte SAME. Div. awarded. The section, however, does not say so. I am of opinion that
Court. 26th and 27th April. this appeal ought to be allowed and the case remitted to the magistrate. The rest of the learned judges concurred in the above judgment,
JUSTICES - LICENSING APPEAL-TRANSFER
LICENCE-CERTIORARI — WILL3, J., in his remarks referring to the case of Gardner v. Mansbridge
Mandamus-ALEHOUSE Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), ss. 4 and 14. (35 W. R. 809, 19 Q. B. D. 217). Appeal allowed.--Counsel, H. Avory. In this case a rule nisi had been obtained for two writs of certiorari and SOLICITORS, Young 4: Windsor.
for a writ of mandamus to the licensing justices of the Prescot Division of (Reported by E. G. STILLWELL, Barrister-at-Law.]
Lancashire, who had on the 21st of December, 1897, granted to one Webb
the transfer under section 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, of a licence APTHORPE v. PETER SCHOENHOFEN BREWERY CO. Div. Court. granted to J. Wallace on the 25th of August, 1897, to apply for and hold 28th April.
a licence to sell by retail at a house situate at Church-street, Farnworth, Island Revenue-Income Tax-Profits and Gains or English COMPANY Wallace had yearly obtained a certificate to hold such a licence in respect
Widnes, beer to be consumed on or off the premises. For ten years Owning BrewxkY ABROAD - CONTROL IN England - Prorits Received of this house, but during the whole of that period he had not resided IN ENGLAND-Income Tax Acts, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, therein. The house in quection had been used as a draper's slo p, and Schedule D, Cases 1 AND 5; 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 2, Schedule D. for thirteen years no beer or other intoxicating liquor had been sold
This was a revenue case stated by the commissioners for the general therein. It was alleged that the justices had no jurisdiction to grant this purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the City of London. The head transser. One of the rules for a certiorari was to quash the grant dated the offices of the company were in London, and the brewery was at Chicago. 25th of August and the other rule was to quash the transfer, and the The question for the decision of the court was whether the company were mandamus was to hear and determine the transfer according to law. In liable to pay income tax upon the whole of its profits, or only upon such support of the rule it was contended that the licence granted to Wallace as wera remitted to England. The company appealed against assessments was null and void because he was not, according to 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61, the m ide upon them of £66,266 for the year ending the 5th of April, 1896, resident, holder, and occupier of the premises, and that therefore the and of £63,970 for the year ending tie 5th of April, 1897, under schedule transfer of such a licence was also null and void. Further, it was con: D of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 31. The Peter Schoenhofen Brewery Co. (Limited) tended that Wallace was not a person within the meaning of section 4 of was an English company, registered under the Joint-Stock Companies 9 Geo. 4, c 61, from whom a licence could be transferred as he had never Acts, with a memorandum of association, and with a registered office at in fact " theretofore kept” the premises as a licensed house, and there, 57, Old Broad-street, City, and was formed in 1889 to acquire the brewery fore it could not be said he was a person about to remove from such” company founded by air. Peter Schoenhofen at Chicago in 1860. The licensed premises. The following cases were cited : Reg. v. King (36 original company consisted of five persons, wbo, by contract dated the W. R. 600, 20 Q. B. D. 430), Reg. v. Sharman (46 W. Ř. 367; 1898, 1 25th of June, 1889, became vendors of all except three of the shares Q. B. 578), Reg. v. Bowman (1898, 1 Q. B. 663), Reg. v. Justices of London
(43 W.R. 287; 1895, 1 Q. B. 214). Section 4 of the Alehouse Act, 1828 R. E. Moore ; Dickens, Q.C., and Boxall. SOLICITORS, Buckwell, Brighton; 19. Geo. 4, c. 61) provides that special sessions shall be held, at which C. H. Waugh, for E. Waugh, Haywards Heath. " it shall be lawful for the justices there and then assembled in the case
[Reported by E. G. STILLWELL, Barrister-at-Law.] and in the manner and for the time hereinafter directed, to licence such persons intending to keep inns theretofore kept by other persons being REG. v. BIRD AND OTHERS. Ex parte NEEDES. Div. Court. 2nd May. about to remove from such inns as they, the said justices, shall deem fit and proper persons.
Section 14 gives the cases in LICENSING LAW-New LICENCE-CONFIRMATION-Right to OPPOJE–Reguwhich a transfer may be granted and inter alia provides for the case where LATIONS OF QUARTER SESSIONS-ULTRA VIRES-LICENSING ACT, 1872 (35 & a duly licensed person shall "remove from or yield up the possession of
36 Vict. c. 94', ss. 37, 43. the house."
Rule nisi to the county licensing committee of the County of London The Court (Wills and KENNEDY, JJ.) discharged the rule for the writs to hold an adjourned sessions and hear and determine the application of of certiorari, but made absolute the rule for a mandamus.
V. Guidotti pursuant to section 43 of the Licensing Act, 1872, that a proWills, J.-It is clear that the decision of the justices cannot be į visional grant of a victualler's licence for certain premises might be con; supported. The premises which Webb intended to keep as an inn have firmed, and to hear the objections of the appellant Needes thereto. On the for over twelve years before the application for the transfer been licensed 25th of March, 1898, Guidotti applied to the licensing justices of the St. in the name of Wallace, but somebody else had occupied them as a Margaret's Division, Westminster, for the grant of a new licence ; the draper's shop, and therefcre they do not come within the words in section appellant appeared and opposed, and the provisional licence was granted. 4 as being premises theretofore kept by other persons being about to Rule 30 of the Standing Orders of the London Quarter Sessi uns provides remove from such inns"; and, moreover, Wallace was not about to that every person (subject as hereinafter provided) intending to oppose remove from such inn"-he bas never resided there. Section 4 has not, the confirmation of any such provisional licence
before the therefore, been complied with, and the justices have clearly acted without county licensing committee shali, within seven days after the grant of jurisdiction. The certiorari, however, must be discharged, as it has been such provisional licence
give notice to the applicant and to the laid down by the Divisional Court that in such a case as this a certiorari is clerk of the peace by registered letter of his intention to oppose the connot the proper remedy. The rule for a mandamus must, however, be made firmation of such provisional licence." This notice was not given by the absolute. The justices have not confined themselves to the construction appellant; but on or about the 16th of April a notice of opposition was of the section, but have clearly taken into consideration matters wholly tendered by the appellant at the Sessions House, and was refused, the outside their jurisdiction. This is not the case where there has been a application having then been entered in the unopposed list. On the 17th of misconstruction of a statute, as no possible construction can make Wallace April notice that the appellant intended to oppose and would apply for leave out to be a person who has “theretofore” kept the premises as an inn. to be heard in opposition was served by registered post on Guidotti. On
KENNEDY, J., in giving judgment, concurred on the same grounds, the 27th of April (the day fixed for the hearing by the county licensing saying: It is clear Wallace does not come within section 4. That section committee of the application for confirmation) the application of the provides that the justices may grant a licence "in the manner hereinafter appellant to be heard in opposition was refueed, and the grant of the directed.” We are therefore referred to section 14 of the same Act, which licence was confirmed. The appellant then obtained this rule. Section 37 stated the cases in which the grant may be made, and, amongst others, of the Licensing Act, 1872, enacts that “the justices in quarter sessions states that, where a duly licensed person shall“ remove from or yield up shall make such regulations with respect to the meetings of any such the possession of the house." But it cannot be said that Wallace comes committee (viz., the county licensing committee) and the transaction of within those words. I am of opinion that the justices have not heard and business thereat as they may think fit." Section 43 enacts that " any determined the application according to law, and I think the mandamus person who appears before the licensing justices and opposes the grant of should be made absolute. Mandamus made absolute; certiorari discharged. a new licence and no other person may appear and oppose the confirma-Counsel, Avory and R. M. Montgomery; Mattinson, Q.C., and T. Swift. tion of such grant by the confirming authorities in counties and boroughs. SOLICITORS, Lloyd-George, Roberts, g Co., for Lewis f Davis, Liverpool ; J.
In a county the justices in quarter sessions assembled Hands, for Edwin Berry, Liverpool.
shall make rules as to the proceedings to be adopted for confirmation of [Reported by E. G. STILLWELL, Barrister-at-Law.]
new licences, and the costs to be incurred in any such proceedings, and
the person by whom such costs are to be paid." It was contended by the CUCKFIELD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL v. GORING. Div. Court. appellant that the rule making the prescribed notice by a person who 25th April.
had appeared in opposition to the provisional grant a condition precedent HIGHWAY-FOOT-BRIDGE-LIABILITY REPAIR-RATIONE TENURÆ
to his right to be heard in opposition to the confirmation was contrary to ACTION AGAINST OWNER NOT IN OCCUPATION OF LAND-LOCAL GOVERN section 43, and was ultra vires. MENT Act, 1894 (56 & 57 VICT. c. 73) s. 25 (2).
The Court (Wills and KENNEDY, JJ.) allowed the appeal. This was an appeal by the defendant from the decision of his Honour WILLS, J.-At first sight nothing can appear more reasonable than that Judge Martineau, sitting at Worthing. The defendart, the Rey. John there should be a rulo as to the hearing of these licensing cases by which Goring, was the owner of certain land on which there were two foot a condition could be enforced that proper notice of opposition to the conbridges over a stream. These bridges united the severed portions of firmation of a licence should be given. But is it within the power given two public footpaths which run over the said land. These footbridges by the statute to make rules as to the proceedings for confirmation ? became out of repair. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to place is lordship read sections 37 and 43.] I think the power thus them in proper repair, but he failed to do so, and the present action was given must include power to make rules, consistent with the Act, then brought against him under section 25 (2) of the Local Government dealing with the manner of opposing as well as with the confirming Act, 1894, to recover £7, the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in placing of the provisional grant; the opposition is part of the business the bridges in proper repair." That section provides that: “Where å relating to the confirmation. But ihat still leaves the real difficulty highway repairable ratione tenure appears on the report of a competent untouched. The Act of Parliament (eection 43) gives power in ko many surveyor not to be in proper repair, and the person liable to repair the words to a person who has opposed the first application to appear aud be same fails, when requested so to do by the district council, to place it in heard on the further application for confirmation. I think that the power proper repair, the district council may place the highway in proper
to make rules, however wide, cannot give power to override the exrepair and recover from the person liable to repair the highway the press power given by the statute to appear and oppose.
The quarter necessary expenses of so doing." The county court judge held that sessions have made rules, some of which may be ultra vires, but we have a liability ratione tenure to repair the bridges attached to the land, and only one to deal with here. Rule 34 expresses neatly the effect of what that proceedings under the above section might be taken against the they have done-"any person who has appeared before the licensing owner of the land, and he accordingly entered judgment for the plain- justices and opposed a grant of a new licence, and who has complied tiffe. The defendant now appealed on the ground, principally, tbat with these rules, and no other person, may appear before the county proceedings under section 25 (2) could only be taken against the occupier licensing committee.” That imposes a new condition not imposed by of the land.
the Act of Parliament, and is ultra vires. I think it would be within th3 The Court (Wills and KENNEDY, JJ.) allowed the appeal.
power of the sessions to say that a person whɔ has not given proper WILLS, J., in giving judgment, said that at the time of the passing of notice should have to pay the costs of any necessary adjournment or the Local Government Act of 1894 the law was that it was only the other costs; such a rule would certainly have my judicial sympathy ; but occupier of land subject to a liability to the repair of highways ratione in imposing a condition of appeal which is not within eection 13'they tenure who could be proceeded against and compelled to carry out such
have gone beyond their powers. No question arises here as to rule 31, repairs. In the case of Reg. v. Barker (25 Q. B. D) Lord Coleridge, C.J., which requires a surety, to be found for the amount of the costs, but it kaid, “From the date of Rolle's Abridgment to the present time, the
seems clear that there is no power to impose such a condition as that. placitum (B) 2, which lays down the law both in the afirmative and the The rules require revision. The principle is that no regulation made negative that you must indict the occupier and cannot indict the owner."
under an Act of Parliament can abridge a power given by the Act
itself. That passage had been held to refer to highways repairable ratione tenure although it did not in terms refer to such highways. There was, there KENNEDY, J.-The county licensing committee treated themselves as fore, very, ancient authority for saying that the occupier is the only bound by certain rules with which the person seeking to oppose the person against whom the liability could be enforced, though no doubt the confirmation of the licence had not complied. He had satisfied the occupier had a right to be re-imbursed by the owner. Section 25 (2) of requirements of section 43, and had therefore entitled himself to appear the Local Government Act, 1894, does not bring in the owner of the land and be heard in opposition to the confirmation, To make an absolute as a person liable to be proceeded against; it merely provides a simpler rule barring a person who is by the Act given a right to be heard from remedy and enables the local authority to do the repairs and recover the being heard unless he gives certain notices and does certain thiugs is to expenses of so doing from the person liable ratione tenure to repair. The go beyond the power to make rules as to the proceedings for confirmation. proceedings in this case had been taken against the wrong person, and the
Had the rule been that the application should in the absence of notice of appeal would therefore be allowed.
opposition be put in the unopposed list and so heard, unless there is an KENNEDY, J., concurred. Appeal allowed.- COUNSEL, Marshall Hall and application, for good cause shewn and upon payment of costs, to transfer
it to the opposed list I think it would have been good; but this rule is employed by the respondents. The respondents were not entitled to the unconditional and is ultra vires. Rule absolute.--COUNSEL, Scrution ; benefit of the exemption contained in section 87 of the Act, for it was Candy, Q.C., and Peter Grain. SOLICITORS, Percy Gates ; Francis Rudall. essential to that exemption that an information should be preferred [Reported by T. R. C. Dill, Barrister-at-Law.]
against another person. ---COUNSEL, Sutton; Rawlinson, Q.O., and Harper.
SOLICITORS, Treasury Solicitor ; Learoyd g Co.
[Reported C. G. WILBRANAM, Barrister-at-Law.) CRIMINAL LAW-OBTAINING CREDIT BY FRAUD-Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Re THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS. Div. Court. 23th and VICT. C. 62), s. 13.
29th April. Case stated by the recorder of Kingston-upon-Hull. The defendant was indicted under section 13 of the Debtors Act, 1869, for having ISLAND REVENTE-Bodies Corporate or UNIXCORPORATE - INCOME OR
PROFITS obtained credit for a sum of £7 7s. 11d. for food and drink and sleeping
OF PROPERTY-Duty-EXEMPTION-PROPERTY APPROPRIATED accommodation supplied, and service rendered to him by a hotel proprietor.
FOR PROMOTION OF SCIENCE Customs AND INLAND REVENUE Act, 1885 It was proved that the prisoner came to the hotel and engaged a bedroom
(48 & 49 VICT. C. 51), s. 11 (3). which he occupied for about a fortnight, being during that time supplied In this case the Royal College of Surgeons petitioned to be discharged with food and drink and other articles. When ordering some of these from an assessment made under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, articles he said: “I will have that booked; the firm will pay for it, and 1885, on the ground that the college is an institution for the promotion of it does not come out of my pocket"; and when bills were presented to education, literature, science, or the fine arts." The petition showed as him for payment he asked for time, and said that he was expecting follows: " (1) That by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, it is remittances from his mother. Subsequently, when pressed for payment enacted that there shall be levied in respect of all real and personal he said: “I am going to throw myself on your mercy; I had no money property which shall have belonged to or been vested in any body when I came, and I have no money now; I have no firm, and I cannot corporate or unincorporate
a duty at the rate of £5 per centum pay your bill unless the money is given me by someone. He was then upon the annual value, income, or profits of such property
after apprehended. The recorder directed the jury that before they could deducting all necessary outgoings
subject to exemption from convict they should be satisfied that the defendant was a person without such duty in favour of property of the description following—that is to sufficient means to pay the debt he had incurred to the prosecutrix, and say, property which, or the income or profits whereof, shall be legally that with the intention of cheating her he bad obtained credit from her appropriated and applied for the benefit of the public at large ; property by means of fraud, the defendant not intending to pay the debt. The which, or the income or profits whereof, shall be legally appropriated jury found the defendant guilty. The question was whether the con and applied for the promotion of education, literature, science, or the fine viction could be supported on the facts. There was no appearance in the arts; (2) that the petitioners are a body politic established by Royal Charter court either by counsel or in person,
in the year 1800; (3) that the objects of the petitioners' incorporation, as THE COURT (Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., and Day, Wills, GRAN- specified in the said Royal Charter, are the benefit of the common weal of THAM, and KENNEDY, JJ.) affirmed the conviction.
this kingdom by the promotion of the art and science of surgery and the Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., in delivering the judgment of the due promotion and encouragement of the study and practice of the said art court, after referring to the facts, said that there was no doubt that there and science of surgery ; (4) that further powers and privileges have from was evidence of the prisoner's guilt to go to the jury; the case was on time to time been conferred upon the petitioners by subsequent Royal all fours with Reg. v. Jones (1898, 1 Q. B. 119).
with the object more effectually to promote and [Reported by T. R. C. Dill, Barrister-at-Law.ī
encourage the study and practice of the said art and science of surgery ;
(5) that by the charter divers obligations and duties are imposed upon the PRIOR v. THE SLAITHWAITE SPINNING CO. Div. Court. 29th April. corporation for the benefit of the public at large and the promotion and FACTORY ACT3-MEAL-TIMES-EMPLOYMENT-FACTORY AND WORKSHOP Act, petitioners are, under terms imposed by Government, the custodians at
encouragement of the said art and science of surgery ; (6) that the 1878 (41 Vict. c. 16), s. 17.
their own expense of the Hunterian collection, which is national property; Section 17 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, provides (sub-section (7) that on the 24th of June, 1894, the annual value of income from 2), with respect to the meals of persons employed in a factory or work. real property was £7,200, the total value of the personal estate was shop, that: “ A child, young person, or woman shall not, during any part £187,195 17s. 11d., and the income
therefrom for the same of the times allowed for meals in the factory or workshop, be employed in yearly period was £5,833 5s. 7d. ; (8) that the whole property the factory or the workshop, or be allowed to remain in a room in which I was legally appropriated and applied for the benefit of the public at large a manufacturing process or handicraft is being then carried on." Section or for the promotion of science, literature, or education; (9) that the 19 provides for the times of meal-times being specified in a notice affixed petitioners were called upon by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to in the factory or workshop, and that the times allowed for meals shall be deliver an account in accordance with section 17 of the Customs and deemed to be the times so specified. Section 94 provides : “A child, Inland Revenue Act, 1885, that they did deliver such an account claiming young person, or woman who works in a factory or workshop, whether
exemption ; (10) that the petitioners were notwithstanding for wages or not, either in a manufacturing process or handicraft, or in assessed by the Commissioners at £3,161, and required to pay as duty the cleaning any part of the factory or workshop used for any manufac- thereon the sum of £158 1s.; (11) that they had been compelled to pay the turing process or handicraft, or in cleaning or oiling any part of the (12) The said sum of £3,161 included the following: The sum of machinery,
shal), save in so far as is otherwise provided by this £300, the annual value of that part of the library within the premises Act, be deemed to be employed therein within the meaning of this Act." Nos. 40, 41, 42, Lincoln's-inn-fields; the sum of £250, the annual value An information was laid against the respondents for that a young person of the official residence of the conservator of the museum which was employed in their factory during the time allowed for meals. The contains among other things the said Hunterian collection ; £200, the young person, a boy named Garside, on the 13th of November, 1897, value of 39, Lincoln's-inn, another portion of the library. (13) Apart stayed inside the factory, a textile mill, during the time allowed for from the general claim to total exemption the petitioners submit that, in dinner. He did so of his own accord because it was warmer inside. any event, the above property comes within the provision for exemption. Having finished his dinner before the dinner-time expired, in order From various affidavits read it appeared that the college, in addition to perto while away the time he set to work to oil the spindles. In forming the duties imposed upon them by the Charters, held examinations doing so he was acting contrary to the rules made by the respondents and granted diplomas to enable candidates to practice as surgeons and and affixed in the mill. It was no part of Garside's duty to oil the dentists. On application the public may obtain access to the library. spindles. His duty was to tie up broken threads. The justices before For the petitioners it was contended that the whole college was exempt, whom the information was heard dismissed it upon the ground that there and in the alternative that all or some of the separate buildings were was no evidence that the boy was employed by the respondents, but they exempt. The Crown exempted the museum, but claimed that none of the stated a case for the opinion of the High Court. It was contended by the other buildings were exempt as they were not appropriated and applied respondents that the acts done by the boy were not necessarily evidence for the promotion of science. The following cases were cited : Society of that he “worked ". within the meaning of section 94. These acts might Writers to the Signet v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (2 Tax C. 257); have been mere mischief or done for the sake of amusement. It was Tailors of (ilasgow v. Commissioners of Inland Rerenue (24 Scot L. R. 516) ; further contended that the respondents were entitled to exemption under Re Bootħam Ward Strays (40 W. R. 121, and in Court of Appeal, 1892, the terms of section 87.
2 Q. B. 152); Linen and Toollen Drapers Case (58 L. T. 949); Forrest v. THE COURT (Wills and KENNEDY, JJ.), allowed the appeal and remitted Commissioners of Inland Revenue (39 W. Ř. 33, 15 App. C. 334). the case to the justices to convict.
The Court" (WRIGHT and CHANNELL, JJ.) found in favour of the Wills, J., said that under the words of the enactment extreme cases petitioners as regards the conservator's house, but against them in respect of hardship might arise from which the mind revolted. But those cases of the rest of the property. were not likely to be of frequent occurrence, and it was important to see Wright, J.-The Inland Revenue Act specially exempts from taxation, whether it was necessary for the Legielature to cover such cases in order firstly, property which, or the income or profits 'whereof, shall be legally to attain the objects aimed at by the legislation. The policy of the appropriated and applied for the promotion of education, literature, science, enactment was to ensure that certain classes of persons employed in and the fine arts. No declaration of trust is required in such a case. The factories and workshops should have the hours allowed for their meals present case does not come within that class, for it cannot be said that the preserved intact. That policy could only be carried out in the manner property of the petitioners is legally appropriated and applied for the proprovided in the Act, and it mattered not how rigorously it might work in motion of science. The main object of the petitioners is the granting some cases ; if the case fell within the terms of the act it must be dealt certificates or diplomas to persons intending to become surgeons, and with accordingly. In the present case the boy was oiling spindles during the largest source of income arises from examination fees.
Then, the dinner-hour. He was none the less working in spite of the fact that secondly, there is the class of property the income of which is not wholly he was doing what he did to amuse himself. Nor did the distinction avail devoted to the purposes of science, but to objects of a mixed character, that his doing what he did was contrary to orders. The magistrate did In such cases each part of the property must be taken and examined not find that the boy was not working. All he found was that he was not ! separately to see if it has been legally appropriated and applied to purposes
for which exemption can be claimed. The principles laid down in Forrest v. | Incandescent Gas Light Cold v New Incandescent (Sunlight Patent), The Commissioners of Inland Revenue must be applied here. It is conceded &c ld 1896 I 1,991 Juue 26 that the museum is exempt. In my opinion the Hunterian museum is Inman v Bishop 1896 I 2,133 July ; also exempt. Then as to the offices. These are mainly appropriated In re Letters Patent, No 10,644 of 1887 and 13,413 of 1889, granted and applied for examination purposes and not for the promotion of science, and that applies still more so to the examination-hall. The library seems a In re Hattersley & Jackson's Patent, No 22,928 of 1895, &c petition
to Carl Haggenmacher petition July 10 more difficult point, but it has not been shown that it is mainly devoted to the purposes of science. As regards the conservator's house, the Crown
Aug 7 contends that it is not exempt, because the college might appoint another Garstin (trading, &c) v Stafford 1897 G 637 Nov 15 house for the conservator to reside in. I, however, think that it is exempt,
THIRD SCHEDULE. as it is within the purposes of the college to have a conservator's house. It would be exempt just the same even if it were removed.
Re-transferred to Mr. Justice BYRNE. CHANNELL, J., delivered a judgment to the same effect.
Dessau v Grueber 1896 D 608 Feb 30 COUNSEL, Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., and J. R. Paget; Sir R. Webster, A.G., and
TRANSFER OF ACTIONS,
Thursday, the 28th day of April, 1898.
I, Hardinge Stanley, Earl of Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great
Britain, do hereby order that the actions mentioned in the Schedule hereto R. WAVERLEY TYPEWRITER (LIM ). D'ESTERRE v. WAVERLEY shall be transferred to the Honourable Mr. Justice Wright. TYPEWRITER (LIM.). 21st April.
Mr. Justice STIRLING (1898-L.-No. 793). (51 & 52 Vict. C. 62) s. 1-PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY In re The Licensed Trades' Pretectorate Limited. AMENDMENT Acr, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 19) s. 2.
Sir Raymond West (Knight) v The Licensed Trades' Protectorate Limited. Summons by the liquidators for directions. The debenture-holders'
HALSBURY, C. action and the winding up of the company both commenced before the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act, 1897, came into force. Section 2 enacts “In the winding up of any company under the Compan'es Act, 1862, and the Acts amending the same, the debts men
LAW SOCIETIES. tioned in Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888, shall, so far as the assets of the company available for the payment of general creditors
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. may be insufficient to meet them, bave priority over the claims of holders
SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING. of debentures or debentare stock under any floating charge created by such company, and shall be paid accordingly out of any property com
A special general meeting of the Incorporated Law Society was held at pı ised in or cubject to such charge." By section 1 (c) of the Act of 1888 the Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, on Friday, the 29th ult., the President workmen were given priority for the winding up. The question which (Mr. William Godden, of London) taking the chair. aroee in this case was whether the Act of 1897 was retrospective or not. The PRESIDENT : Before proceeding with the business upon the agenda
WRIGHT, J., held that in this case the workmen were not entitled to I should like to mention first of all, what we all know, that the priority over the debenture-holders, as (1) prima facie the Act was not
LAND TRANSFER ACT retrospective although ambiguous, and also that, having regard to section 3 of the Act, prima facie that provision was prospective. In this case the of last year comes into operation on the 1st of July, and that it is Legielature 'had interfered with the rights of debenture-holders if they intended to apply it in London, as appears from the published accounts of bad not taken steps to realize their securities before the passing of the the proceedings of the London County Council, progressively in portions. Act, but it had not gone so far as to interfere with their rights when they Mr. Ford: Moderately. had already taken steps.-COUNSRL, C. T. Mitchell and Percy F. Wheeler. The PRESIDENT : After July no conveyances on sale will pass the legal 8. LICITORS, Shain, Roscoe, Massey, g Co., James Mote & Sons.
estate unless the purchaser puts his name on the register, which he will [Reported by C. W. MEAD, Barrister-at-Law.]
be able to do as with a possessory or a qualified or an absolute title. The rules under that Act have been prepared with enormous labour, and are now obtainable by the public for examination and criticism. Under these rules the Act will apply to leaseholds having more than forty years
to run. Another subject I would also mention, with regard to the NEW ORDERS, &c.
publication of rules under the
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
These rules also are open to the public. Anyone can obtain a copy.
They are intensely interesting to our country clients, especially country
clients in the industrial centres. The only other subject I will trouble Whereas, the causes and matters set forth in the Schedules hereto, you with is that, the strain on cur reserves caused by our semi-judicial which were by the order dated the 22nd of Febrnary, 1898, trans- functions having been somewhat relieved, we are able to do a little more ferred to the onorable Mr. Justice Gorell Barnes for the purpose for our members. We have already furnished you with some books which only of hearing or of trial, remain undisposed of; Now I, the Right may be useful, and I may mention another, the new edition of the Honorable Hardinge Stanley, Earl of Halsbury, Lord High Chancel
SCALE DIGEST, lor of Great Britain, do hereby order that the several causes and matters set forth in the Schedules hereto, be re-transferred to the
which will be forwarded to the members. As you know, the digest respective judges from whom they were transferred by the said consists at present of the edition issued some years ago, and vols. 2 and 3 order and be marked to the cause books accordingly.
And this by way of supplement, and of indices. Without indices it is not a very order is to be drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several
easy matter, even for those familiar with the book, to find wbat they offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.
want. We hope, before the annual meeting, to iseue to every member of
the society free of charge a consolidated new edition of the digest. FIRST SCHEDULE.
Mr. F. ARMITAGE (London) asked if it was in order to inquire with
reference to the Land Transfer Bill as to what part of London had been Re-transferred to Mr. Justice STIRLING.
selected to begin with. 1897.
The PRESIDENT: I do not think it would be quite in order. Croysdale v Sunbury-on-Thames, &c, Council 1897
SOLICITORS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
Mr. HARVEY CLIFTON (London) moved, in accordance with notice : The Dunlop Poeumatic Tyre Co, la v Stone 1896 P1,760 May 20 steps to obtain a repeal of section 47 of the Solicitors Act of 1843, which
“That the Council of the Incorporated Law Society (U.K.) should take Blaiberg v Mear 1896 B 4,988 May 25
provides that this Act shall not extend or be construed to extend to the Pretcher v New Rio Tinto Copper Co, ld 1897 P 189 May 25
examination, admission, rights, or privileges of any persons appointed to Barrett v Barrett 1897 B 1,814 May 18
be solicitors to the Treasury and other Government offices." The section
in question provided “That this Act or anything herein contained ehall SECOND SOHEDULE.
not extend or be construed to extend to the examination, swearing, Re-transferred to Mr. Justice ROMER.
admission or emolument or any rights or privileges of any persons
appointed to be solicitors of the Treasury, Customs, Excise, Post Office, Hetley v Webber 1896 H 4,067 May 11
Stamp Duties, or any other branch of Her Majesty's Revenue, or to the Edison Bell Phonograph, &c ld v Rigg 1897 E 69 June 25 Solicitor of the City of London, or to the Assistant of the Council for
the Affairs of the Admiralty or Navy, or to the Solicitor to the Board of class of members, and also to reduce the annual subscription payable by Ordnance.” He said it would be remembered that some two years ago members or any class of members”; (2) that the following addition be he asked a question of the then president in regard to the appointment of made at the end of rule 4 : but such subscription may be reduced by the solicitors to Government offices, and although he had no expectation committee as before mentioned”; (3) that the words "if any' be whatever of securing the passing of his motion, yet he desired to press the inserted in rule 6 after the words “ entrance fee," and in rule 7 after the matter forward in order that the Council might give it their constant and words "entrance fees."'" best attention. When he asked the question before, he inquired whether Mr. C. Mylne Barker (London) moved the recolution at the request of steps would be taken to obtain a repeal of the section to which he referred Mr. Walters, who was unable to be present. The object was to extend in the motion. He was then told that no steps would be taken, but that the usefulness of the club by letting in country members at what amounted as the vacancies occurred representations would be made by the society to a nominal subscription. It gave power to reduce the entrance fees, to the authorities. The act of George 4, which originally dealt with but no power to increase them. the matter, recited in the preamble as follows: "Whereas it has been found greatly conducive to the public interest that attorneys specially seconded the motion. It was a step in the right direction, and he
Mr. J. T. ATKINSON (Selby), as a country member of the Council, appointed by the Commissioners of the Treasury, or by the several Com; anticipated a large accession of country members. missioners of His Majesty's Revenue to be solicitors or attorneys on behalf of his Majesty should act and practise as such solicitors or
Mr. Ford said this was shocking. Here were members of the Council attorneys without being admitted or enrolled as solicitors or attorneys,
who were most eager in the matter. It was the one absorbing subject of
He wished the club at the and without being subject by reason of such acting or practising to any consideration, this club, he was afraid. regulations in force in any part of the United Kingdom relating to soli. bottom of the Atlantic. The original club was wound up and disposed of citors and atttorneys.” He ventured to suggest that that preamble long ago, and this new club was no better. It was a mischievous thing was utterly untrue
and utterly unjustified to-day, and that for the society that there should be 200 or 300 out of the thousands of it was
standing insult to solicitors that such preamble members of the society who absorbed and monopolized about a third of should remain in the Statute Book. Section 47 of the Act of 1843 the society's property, Mr. Barker had put the matter in a very provided that the ordinary regulations as to admission of solicitors euphonious fashion. If the club paid the society £2,000 a year the should not apply to solicitor: appointed to the various offices such as the members could get many more interesting volumes such as that proTreasury and other Government offices. What did they find at the mised by the president. By the first section of the motion the club present day? Among the appointments which should be held by solicitors might elect anybody, the Lord Chancellor possibly. He was glad to know but which were held by members of the bar were that of the Assistant there was a division amongst the Council in regard to the club. He hoped Solicitor to the Customs, the Solicitor to the Exchequer and Audit the Council would not encourage the club. If the society wanted a place Department, the Solicitor to the Secretary of State of India, the Solicitor for luncheon it should be open to every member of the society. There for Inland Revenue, the Assistant Solicitor for Inland Revenue, Solicitor was no hope, however, of resisting the club members present to-day, who to the Local Government Board, Solicitor to Public Works and Buildings were a majority in the meeting. The club was like a barnacle on the Department, Solicitor to Queen Anne's Bounty, Solicitor to the Treasury,
bottom of a ship, a thing that ought to be removed. and the Assistant Solicitor to the Treasury, and the Solicitor to the Woods Mr. Grinham Keen said he was rather surprised at Mr. Ford's argu. and Forests. He thought that was a pretty complete catalogue. It was ments. He had thought Mr. Ford would have been an ardent supporter of & standing injustice to solicitors to-day. Whatever the facts might have a movement which would be very useful to the country members at large. That been in 1843 which necessitated the appointment of barristers to solicitors' was all it came to. The reason for the Council being there was to be of appointments, these were not the facts to-day, and whatever might be the service to the members of the society, and this proposal had for its object feeling of the older members of the profession with regard to the existing state to make the club much more useful throughout the length and breadth of things, it was not the feeling of the younger generation of solicitors to- of the land. He had been connected with the society for forty years and day. The members looked to the Council to maintain the prestige of the upwards, and he had always felt that the society had been the grandest profession and to secure to them appointments which they ought to hold, thing for solicitors it was possible to imagine. He had always felt that and although he was afraid he should not be very heartily supported to- he would do his level best to keep and conserve that which a bygone day, inasmuch as the men who felt the matter most strongly were not generation had created for solicitors, and hand it down to those who able to attend, and, although he had no chance of passing the resolution, should follow without its being any worse than it was before. It has he hoped that some little good might be done by the publicity of the fact been the making of the solicitor branch of the profession, and what was that many young solicitors felt very greatly the grievance to which he had the original prospectus that was put out when the society was contem, drawn attention. He should not take up further time, because he plated? That there should be a law institution, and that there should believed that there was a strong feeling, and it was not for him to elaborate be a club attached to it on the lines of the Athenæum and University or emphasize it.
Clubs, and the old club remained still and was a very great convevience Mr. W. HASELDINE JONES (London) seconded the motion.
to a great number of the profession. The object of the alteration of the Mr. CHARLES FORD (London) said he had felt for thirty years that the rules now proposed was to make the club more useful throughout the Act placed eolicitors in a monstrous position. The Act was passed in 1843 country. Mr. Ford said that the club was done away with on a former in the interests of the bar. But he thought the meeting could hardly be occasion, but he (Mr. Keen) denied it altogether. It was not done away asked to pass the motion, and he should like to move as an amendment, with. Technically there were originally two ballots, the ballot for which perhaps Mr. Clifton would accept: “That it be referred to the membership of the society and the ballot for membership of the club. Council to consider and report at the next general meeting on the question That was a mistake. He remembered that Mr. Lake pointed it out at & of modifying or repealing the section.” It would be better to leave the very early period, and it was seen at once that there was a technical matter in the hands of the Council rather than that it should be passed objection to two ballots. This had been overlooked in forming the club. without a more full discussion. There was a good deal more in it than all that had been done was to get rid of one of the ballots. It was a possibly Mr. Clifton imagined, because it extended to the Solicitor of the little technical objection, which had been swept away and the old club City of London, to the Solicitor to the Admiralty, and to all sorts of remained. rubbish of that kind.
Mr. F. K. MUNTON (London) said he was not a member of the committee Mr. ARMITAGE seconded the amendment.
of the club, but he was a member of the club. Mr. GRINHAM KEEN (London) said that during the twenty-one years he Mr. FORD: You are going to help to pass the motion though. had been a member of the Council the Council had made numerous Mr. Munton said he had seconded a resolution ten years ago to enable efforts in the direction pointed out by the motion when the Solicitorship the Council to elect honorary members to the club, and the meeting had to the Customs, the Admiralty Solicitorship, and the Queen's Proctorship carried the motion. The Council, however, had used the power given to were vacant.
them most honourably and sparingly, and had only nominated the secre; The PRESIDENT: The Post Office Solicitorship.
tary and the agsistant secretary. He thought it very unfair that Mr. Ford Mr. Keen said the Post Office Solicitorship also. The Council bad had should bring the matter forward in this way, knowing that the statements committees sitting from time to time. He had had the pleasure, with he made would get into the Press. Still, it was a good thing that they others, of spending a day in the Council room helping to compose a letter should get into the papers so that the true state of the case might be to the Prime Minister on the subject, and they had never lost an oppor- known. But the statements Mr. Ford had made ought not to be allowed tunity of doing their utmost to put the right man forward from the ranks to go unchallenged. of the solicitor branch of the profession. To speak of it as a new thing, Mr. Ford asserted that the old club had been done away with. as far as the Council was concerned, was rather a mistake. He felt that resolution was recorded on the minutes of the society. to expect the Government to give up the right to appoint anybody they The President observed that as a matter of history he might mention chose to a particular office was out of the question. They must keep on that when in 1825 their predecessors determined to revivify the Law pagging away every time there was a vacancy, and get as many solicitors Society each of the gentlemen who interested themselves in the work sent in as they could; and he claimed for the Council that they had done this in to the Law Society a pipe of port wine. invariably.
The motion was carried. The amendment was negatived, 6 votes being given in its favour, and The President remarked that the object of the motion was to bring 16 against.
the country and London into closer harmony. The number of members of The motion was also rejected, the voting being-for, 6; against, 15. the society were at present greater than had ever been the case. LAW SOCIETY CLUB.
membership of the society was more than 7,900, being in advance of the
numbers on any previous occasion. The following appeared on the agenda paper : “Mr. William Melmoth Walters will move that the following resolution, in reference to the Law
LONG VACATION. Society's Club, passed at the special general meeting on the 28th of Mr. Ford, in accordance with notice, asked the President what steps, if January last, be confirmed-viz.: (1) "That the following addition be any, the Council have taken to give effect to the resolution of the society made at the end of rule 3 : " but the committee shall have power at their with regard to shortening the Long Vacation, and also whether the Council discretion to suspend or reduce the entrance fee for any period or for any ) are taking any steps to secure the transaction of legal business the Long