Page images
PDF
[graphic]
[graphic]

must come before Parliament, and did not take effect until it was laid upon the table of the House for a certain number of days If, therefore, anyone thought the House of Commons had misconceived the position, the House of Commons and House of Lords would have opportunities enough of pointing that out, and moving in one or other of the Houses of Parliament. It was impossible to conceive an experiment which, even if it were the only precaution, could be more fair. But it went further than that. The district itself was limited, and the time was limited. The order which took effect was the first order—whether in London, or, if refused, whether anywhere else, it was the first order—and no further order could be made for a period of three years, giving a very sufiicient time for seeing how the system worked, and whether the difficulties and delays, made so much of by the opener, really took effect or not. And those also were not the only precautions, because by this Act, differing in that respect from every previous Act passed on the the subject, all the rights of the legal profess: )1]. of both branches were effectually protected, much more than under the ordinary system of conveyance at present. Because now, although ii. was provided that no other than a barrister or solicitor, or equally qualified person could prepare a deed, there were no means of enforcing that prohibition. All one eon d do was to go to Somerset House and endeavour to get the ofiicials to take action. This clause was a repetition of the clause in the Stamp Act, under which alone tho protection of the profession rested. By the Act that was made an offence punishable under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and consequently any organised society, barristers or solicitors, in London or the country, had the thing in their own hands to enforce; and certainly the Incorporated Law Society had never shewn themselves hehindhand in enforcing such a measure whenever they had had the opportunity. But that, again was not the only precaution. In this Act, as in none other on the subject, the rule-making committee, or at all events the committee by whose advise and sanction the rule is to be made, isjto be a legal committee, the ma'ority being legal members. Out of tlve one was a judge, one was nominated by the Bar, one was nominated by the Incorporated Law Society, the other two being the Registrar and some one nominated by the Board of Agriculture, presumably a landowner. Even that was not all. The fees had been so reduced as to be practically nominal. Let them take the County of London, supposing the Act to come into operation there. He would undertake to say that no one but a lawyer would know the difference either in cost or in time or in trouble between registering a possessory title at the registry and registering the same deed as he would have to do in Middlesex. It would cost him less, and it would not take him more time. Under the rules, which would no doubt be shortly issued, it would be hardly possible for more than forty-eight hours’ delay to take place in registering a posse ssory title, and very rarely more than twenty-four hours. One could n ot get one's deeds in the Middlescx Registry in so short a time. He believed it was a fact that it used to take in the Middlesex Registry two clear days unless an expedition fee was paid, when the deed could be got on the second day. Mr. Rcnmsriris : It is the same now. . Mr. Lana said that then his point was perfectly good. It would take less time to register a possessory title, all one was compelled to do, than to register the same in Middlesex. It would cost less unless the property was of considerable size. The fee, inclusive of registration, the new certificate, plans, and entry made on the register, would not exceed ls. 6d. per cent. up to £1,000, and then it dropped to ls. per cent. All these precautions surely were suflicient to justify those who thought, as he individually did, that registration of title was of itself a good thing, or that when Parliament came up to that state that, rightly or wrongly, it had determined to have some measure of this kind, surely with the precautions which have been taken in the Act, it was not an unreasonable thing to say. “ With these conditions let this system, about which there is such diversity of opinion, have a fair and impartial and proper trial.” All precautions ad been taken to protect all interests, and the Act should be supported, it only on the grounds of its being an experimental Act and calculated to enable them to decidi whether those who opposed the system of registration of title—aud no one did so more than he ha.d——or those who supported it were in the right. Mr. Rubinstein had spoken of the certificate of title, but he was under a misconception as to what that was. He said there would be absolutely no gain whatever ; but there would be a good deal of gain. As a few years passed by there would be no inconsiderable gain—there would be no necessity for abstracts. They would not be reqinred at all after a few years. No one asscrted,that they would be done away with at once, but so soon as the Statute of Limitations, in the sense solicitors habitually adopted it in practice, had operated (a title of twenty years) there would be no necessity whatever for going behind the certificate at all. Until that time, everyone who was not satisfied to start with a more recent certificate would have to inquire into the title as he did now, except that the time would be shortened. Because in practicetwenty years was almost the extreme of title they were now in the habit of taking. But there was one more advantage. The registration of title did prevent one class of fraud which was very far from being rare. He meant the frauds which were brought aboutby the concealment of deeds. Hehad,perhaps, special opportunities of seeing that class of fraud, and it was the case, he was very sorry to say, for his own branch of the profe&sion—but of course it was because solicitors had peculiar facilities for dealing with land of their clients, who very properly put confidence in them-it was the case that it did fall into their hands to have the opportunity of creating such frauds. He instanced a case where a solicitor had ii lease which he mortgaged; he then forged a similar lease and mortgaged it, and so on four times. Each mortgagee thou ht he had a good security. That class of fraud would be wholly impossible in the case of a registered title. He did not suggest that there might not be other frauds that might arise on a registered title. He thought he put that as strongly as ossible in his evidence before the Commission in 1895, but no system could Ibo invented which was wholly free from the possibility of fraud. As for the fraud by which a purchaser put a large

[graphic]

sum of money into a conveyance and sold it for double the amount, and so on, that was a simple, gross, impalpable fraud; but that could be done, and he knew one instance of its having been done in this country. \Vhere there were two men who were themselves fraudulent, the purchaser and vendor, and a solicitor was found to help them in the fraud, it could readily be carried out under the present system of conveyancing. It would be rather easier, indeed, because the purchase money was written out in letters and words which a man might be pardoned for not being able to read, whereas it appeared on the certificate in the left hand margin in plain figures. He was not inclined to think that there was such an enormous proportion of fraudulent people as llfr. Rubinstein would appear to suppose. He thought they would be very rare. Then Mr. Rubinstein had taken objection to the Act because, under present conditions, one had a number of deeds which the banker turned over to see what was in them. But that was provided for. He thou ht Mr. Rubinstein was in error in his interpretation. As he (Mr. Lakg read the section, the price would appear on every certificate, it was to appear on the first certificate, and on all transfers and charges, and he could not conceive any words much wider than the words used in that section. He thought that in practice it would be found that a man would take his one certificate, and be very glad to surrender all the others and have no trouble about keeping his deeds or anything else. But if he thought it to his advantage to have a series of certificates he could have them. There was in the Act, which there had never been before, a clause making it compulsory upon the Registrar to have no dealings with the land without the production of the certificate. Mr. Rubinstein had compared the system with the Torrens Act, but he was comparing two things which were esssentially difl'erent. The Torrens Act knew nothing but the indefeasible title, and there must therefore be complete investigation and the boundaries made conclusive; and, therefore, in every case the property had to be re-surveyed, which of course meant considerable expense. The only other objection was upon one or two questions of construction; but he had never ‘yet found an Act of Parliament upon which there was not an opportunity for dispute until the courts had decided the conflicting construction. Mr. Rubinstein had complained that the Act was not a consolidating Act. He was afraid they had all to make that complaint not only of the Land Transfer Act, but of all Acts. It arose from the exigencies of Parliamentary discussion. As a. matter of fast, the consolidation of these two Acts was actuilly in draft now.

Whether it would be brought in during the next or the following session he did not know, but no one was more alive to the defect of having to refer back than those who framed the Bill which became the Act of 1897. The whole of the law societies acquiesced in the view that it had come to the point that a compromise was necessary. The principal other point was, it was suggeste , that because Lord Cairns had been against compulsion of title, therefore we ought not now to have compulsion, because he was a great conveyancer, whereas the Lord Chancellors responsible had neither of them had practice in conveyancing. But it must be borne in mind that when Lord Calms was asked to make titles compulsory, titles were in a very different state from now. There were now no end of things in shortened Acts, and

others which had greatly simplified titles, and made that possible which Lord Cairns was than satisfied was not either possible or desirable. His own view of the Act came to this, not arguing it on the question of registration of titles as against deeds, or the present system—the reason, principally, that he opposed the motion was that they had come rather to a parting of the ways, and it had come to be absolutely essential to have some sort of experiment. All he hoped was that they should all take care that that experiment was full and fair ; that the area should be sutlicient, and the business also. But why should it be made compulsory at all? He would tell them why he at least was satisfied that compulsion was absolutely essential. It was urged very strongly that

a certain, steady flow of business should be insured, to see what the oflice coull do under pressure, because it had been argued a inst the Bill that there would be a block, and that it would be impossfiile to transact the

business, and that there would be great delays, and so on. It was said that if a district were given where the registry could estimate on fifty or sixty or two hundred dealin daily, a staff could be got together accordingly, and

fees could be reduceds almost to a nominal amount. That was what had been

done. The authorities knew within a very little the number of deeds that were dealt with in the Middlesex Registry day by day. They knew also that these deeds came from the area which they were able to put under the compulsory system, and they could very easily, by separating from these settlements wills and mortgages, arrive at the number 0 dealings they would have, and from

that they were able to deduce the cost and to rec on the feei, and no one could

complain that the fees were not exceedingly reasonable, and very little more

than nominal. He thought it was too late to oppose the system sim ly on

the ground of its novelty. After all, to whichever branch of the profpessiou

they belonged, they were the servants, not the masters of the public. And

if the public chose to be unreasonable, and were determined to have a trial

of a certain system, it was the duty of lawyers—and he believed it would

also be to their interest-that they should have that trial, and that lawyers

did take care that what the public really wanted they should do their best to carry out. It might be that in the carrying of it out it would be shown that the system was unworkable. Personally, he believed it would be found to be successful. But the alternative would be far more serious. Suppose the Bill of 1895 had passed, under which the whole of England would have been put under the compulsory system at once, without an precautions, without local option, without precaution that what was clone should be done by a trained body of men, without any opportunity of Parliament being again consulted, without any reduction of the fees, would not they have been in a very much worse position than now, when, by accepting the principle in the limited form in which the Act put it, they had secure-.1 by actual test and practice that the validity or invalidity of objections to the system should be tested, and that the public might have what they cert-4i-il y

[Vol 42.]

[graphic]

considered vet; desirable at present-namely, some sort of reform in the conduct of lan conveyancing in England ?

Mr. Nnvi:i.i.s Ti-zssvrr thought it would be a comparatively costly and expensive matter to have a title registered, and therefore the system ought not to be forced upon any unfortunate set of landowners, even as an experiment. _

Mr. W. J. BULL said he was £1 member of the sub-committee appointed by the London County Council to consider the nutter. He could not help thinking that the Incorporated Law Society had not done their best for solicitors. Solicitors could not think otherwise than that this was a very largo and dangerous experiment indeed. The County Council were dealers in property to the extent of about £2,000,000, but the conveyancing solicitor to tho Council, who had been in his seat for thirty years, had only had one re istered title through the ofiice. l{e was not aware that the public had asked for this Act. The majority of the public did not understand the matter at all. A firm of solicitors at Brighton had sent to the London Coimty Council a most appalling list of cases of difiiculty which occurred in their practice, and asked what was to be done in these cases when the Act was in operation? The solicitor for the County Council had told him he should not bother about registering the land held by the Council imless he was compelled; they were not going to sell it. It seemed to him (Mr. Bull) that that would be the case with a great many landowners in London. Already the sub-committee of the Council had discovered ii great many defects in the Act. They were considering whether it should be applied to the north-west part of the County of Middlesex in the County of London for the first part, to the east side of the county; secondly and thirdly, to the County of Surrey. It seemed to him it would be a source of difiiculty if the Act was compulsory in one part of the county and not in another, and he could not help thinking that it would have been better if, instead of putting it before the wealthy County of London, where property of such enormous value was at stake, it had. been tried on a smaller scale to start with.

Mr. S. E. HUBBARD spoke in op osition to the Act.

Mr. RUBINSTEIN, in reply, said the grounds of opposition were plain. Solicitors said the present system was workable and not extravagant, and satisfied the clients ; and why they should try and compromise with people who did not understand anything about it, he could not tell. The Act had been brought into existence to a large extent by the agitation of people who knew absolutely nothing about the subject. It had been stated by one of these that the expenses of a sale of land for £10,000 amounted to £1,000. Under the scale the remuneration would be £7. Theso were the kind of agitators who were going about talking of long deeds and heavy expenses. Then it was suggested that solicitors were placing themselves in a strong position by allowing the compromise to come into operation, but it was not stated what was to be done with the registry ofiice after the three years. There would have to be a big ofiice and a large staff, in fact Mr. Lake had said it must be adequate to the work. It would be tothe interest of the ofiicials to fight for their existence, and no Government will then be able to dislodge them. They knew that Mr. Lake spoke with authority. He was accredited, with being a part author of the Act. He (Mr. Rubinstein) had been exceedingly

pleased to be put right by Mr. Lake. It might be that the Act was one which re uired such a.n intimate knowle

q dge as Mr. Lake possessed to understand it. He (Mr. Rubinstein) had misread it, and other peo le might misread it. Mr. Lake told them they were all wrong about this indefensible title that practically they would not get.

Mr. Lana : Not unless they ask for it.

Mr. RUBINSTBIN : But you won't get it if you ask for it, unless the Registrar goes through a forty afiears’ title.

Mr. Lana: I have got it in my property, which is rather large. I got it at less expense than I should otherwise.

Mr. BUBINSTEIN ventured to think that the authorities knew Mr. Lake, and that they would have in him a friend. But he was talkin of the average man, and he thought tho ordinary individual would not be able to get an in efaasible title. Then Mr. Lake said that if they could not get an indefensible title, they could get a qualified title ; that would be worse than useless. Then he said they would get a possessory title, in other words, they must add an extra expense.

1 Mr. Laxa : Just as ho would for registering in Middlesex; no more, rather ess.

Mr. RUBINSTBIN said that Mr. Lake asserted that the foes would be nominal.

Mr. Lana : That is provided by the Act.

Mr. ltuainsriiin observed that the same oflicc registered deeds in Middlesex. That was more clerical work ; but the time required was from ten days to a IOI'i.lI£lFlll). How would the certificate be got out within twenty-four hours, as r. Lake had said would be the case ?

Mr. Lana : It is a much simpler matter.

Mr. RUBINSTBIN said that Mr. Lake told them the fees were absolutely nominal, less than in the Middlesex Registry, where, at present, five shillings was payable. But the Registrar would have to look at the deed and examine it and make plans and surveys. There was a section of the Act which provided that fees should be raised from time to time so as to produce an annual amount sufficient to discharge the salaries and other expenses, including the annual contribution to the insurance fund. Supposing these nominal fees did not produce sufficient, where was the money to come from ?

Mr. Lsxs : The Treasury. There is a provision for it.

Mr. RUBINSTEIN said that meant that the taxpayers of the country were to be mulcted for the experiment. If that \vas so, why not be frank and say so? Then the taxpayers had a right to have a voice in tho matter.

Mr. Lana : They have got it.

Mr. RUBINSTBIN asserted that then they did not know what they had got. Ho ventured to say the ofiice could not be carried on at the nominal foes

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Lake had spoken of. When a man had obtained the possessory certificate, what had he got ? They did not give up their deeds ; they had got something additional to put on the title beyond the deed for twenty odd years. That was not generally understood to be the obj sctof the Act. It was to simplify tillcs, not to increase the documents. He could not see where the advantage of the Act came in, quite the contrary. lie said they would have to go to ofiicials at every step and still have to produce their deeds and titles, with the addition that at every step they would have to say, “ Has it been duly registered? Have you a possessory title ? ” And in those circumstances he thought he was justifie-i in asking the meeting to carry the resolution.

Toe motion was then ut; when six votes were given in its favour and ten against. It was acccorigngly lost by four votes. It should be stated that there was a much larger attendance, but only members of the socistv were permitted to vote.

THE SOLICITORS’ MANAGING CLERKS’ ASSOCIATION.

The following syllabus of lectures and papers for the session 1897-1898 has been issued. By the kind permission of the benchers of the Honourable Societies of Lincoln’s-inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray's-inn, the lectures will be delivered in the lecture rooms of the Inns of which the lecturers are members. The chair will be taken at 7 p.m. precisely. Any questions or observations on the lectures must be reserved until the close, when. if time permits and it is desirable, a short discussion will be invited. The lectures are open to all the members of the association, and each member will be allowed to introduce friends connected with the legal profession. Non-members will be admitted on production of tickets or syllabuses, which can be obtained at the ofllce of the association.

The Right Hon. Lord J ustica Vaughan Williams will tike the chair at the inaugural lecture on the 23rd of November.

The Right Hon. Lord Justice Cbitty has kindly promised to be present, if possible. 1 7

89 .

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Feb. 1.--Lecture—“ Legal Cruelty" (Divorce), by J. A. Rentoul, Esq., LL D., Q.C., M.P. (In the Lecture Room of the Inner Temple )

Feb. 15.—Paper—“ Trusts and the Trustee Acts,” by R. Bramwell Davis, Esq., Q.C. (In the Lecture Room of the Inner Temple.)

March 1.—Lecture —“ Practice of the Commercial Court and its applicability to Queen's Bench procedure Tgenerally," by J. A. Hamilton, Esq. (In the Lecture Room of the Inner emple.)

Nov. 15.-—Paper—" Some Doubtful Points on Company Law,” by D. %tewaft-Smith, Esq., LLB. Lend. (In the Lecture Room of the Middle

emp e.)

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

and William Stanley '-Varenne Cullerne, clerk to the Guardians of the Guildford Union.

LAW STUDENTS’ SOCIETIES.

Law Srunnivrs’ Dsnanxc SO0IBTY.~—NOV. 2.-—Mr. Arthur E. Clarke in the chair.—The subiject for debate was: “ That this society disapproves as the ‘Forward Po icy’ in India.” Mr. Hamilton Fox opened in the afllrmative, and Mr. A. Hildesheimer opened in the negative. The following members also spoke: Messrs. Haseldine Jones, R. H. Armstrong, G. G. Baily, R. A. Cordon, and E. A. Alexander. The chairman summed up.

Nov. 9.—Mr. Neville Tebbutt in the chair.—The subject for debate was : “ A., the active partner in a firm consisting of himself and B. and C., two dormant partners, instructs D., a solicitor, to conduct an action for the recovery of a debt due to the firm. Whilst action pending the partnership is dissolved, and B. and C. retire from the business. D. then receives indirect notice of the dissolution, and learns for the first time of the existence B. and 0., but B. and O. did not do anything to withdraw D.’s retainer. Are B. and C. liable to D. for the costs in the action incurred subsequently to the dissolution?” (see Court v. Berlin, 1897, 2 Q. B. 396). Mr. A. Dixon opened in the aflirmative; Mr. F. H. Stevens opened, and Mr. E. W. Hales seconded, in the negative. The following members also spoke: Messrs. C. A. Anderson, C. Herbert-Smith, Hamilton Fox, Archibald Hair, Haseldine Jones, G. G. Baily, D. S. Ccrnock, and J . H. Bate. B. and C. were declared liable by 10 votes.

Nov. l6.—Mr. Archibald Hair in the chair.—The subject for debate was: “That this society approves of the minority report of the West India Royal Commission." Mr. A. F. C. Bolton opened in the affirmative; Mr. Charles A. McCurdy opened in the negative. The following members also spoke: Messrs. J. S. \Vilkinson, G. W. Powers, John Blair, Hamilton Fox, Dr. Herbert-Smith, P. L. H. Canning, E. A. Alarander, and Neville Tebbutt. The motion was carried by five vo s.

LORD ESHER’S FAREWELL.

Or: Monday last the Lord Chief Justice's Court was crowded with members of the profession desirous of shewing respect to Lord Esher. There were present on the bench, in addition to Lord Esher, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Francis Jenne, Lord Justice A. L. Smith, Lord Justice Rigby, Lord Justice Chitty, Lord Justice Collins, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, Mr. Justice Mathew, Mr. Justice Barnes, Mr. Justice Kennedy, Mr. Justice Bigham, Mr. Justice Darling, Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice Stirling, Mr. Justice Kekewich, Mr. Justice Romer, and Mr. Justice Byrne. The Arronnsv-Gnnnnsn (the Bar standing), after referring to Lord Esher’s career_ at the Bar, said: \Vhen, my lord, in 1868, you relinquished the high position of Solicitor-General to become one of the judges of the old Court of Common Pleas, there were not a few who thought that you had somewhat abruptly terminated what might have been a great Parliamentary or forensic career. But, my lord, a few months were sufiicient to satisfy all that in undertaking the great responsibilities of a judge you were accepting the duties of an office which you were well qualified to fulfil. Many of us remember the great commercial years of prosperity and the Guildhall sittings unshorn of any of their ancient glory, and can remember the trial of many causes in which your lordship’s business knowledge and acquaintance with commercial affairs came out in strong relief. Your translation to the Court of Appeal in 1876, and your selection as Master of the Rolls, following one of the quickest thinkers who has ever adorned the English Bench, are steps in your career which met with universal approval and approbation. I pause not to consider whether the twenty-nine years during which your lordship has occupied high judicial position is without precedent, but this I say, without fear of criticism, that from the day when your lordship first sat upon the bench until the day of your retirement your career has been one of continuous and increasing success. Your lordship made your court a tribunal for business men in which mercantile usages and mercantile customs were glrasped and appreciated, and while you endeavoured to bring to bear to t e case which you had to decide all the legal knowledge at your disposal, you never permitted any legal technicalities to interfere with what you believed to be substantial justice. We at the Bar have winced at times under the searching criticisms of our argumentscriticisms which led us to stand up, as your lordship would have wished us to stand up, against the interlocutory comments, for the moment perhaps adverse to the views which we were expressing on behalf of our clients. But your lordship’s comments left no sting behind, and on reflection we felt that your great object was first to ascertain the facts, and then to endeavcurto see that justice should be done. I have but one more word to say. There is one feeling to which expression must be given, and that is the conviction which has rested in the hearts of every member of the Bar of your constant and unswerving lo alty to our profession. Though you were far above us, you still wishedy to be one of us; you respected our wants and our aspirations; you have shared our joys and our sorrows. It is this feeling which made it impossible that on should be allowed to retire in silence ; it is this feeling which will link you with us in the future as it has in the past; it is this feeling which will make you carry with you a wealth of good wishes of far more value than any feeble words in which I have expressed them; it is this feeling which makes it so difficult for me to say the word which can scarcely be uttered by friends—I mean, farewell. Lord EBHEE, in reply, after a few jocular remarks, said : It is true that

[graphic]

on the bench, when I was in the position of an ofllcer on the quarterdcck, I had, and was obliged to give, occasionally, words of command; but the moment one leaves the deck one is nothing but a fellow-oflicer, and I have been nothing but a fellow-barrister with you always. It is in that character, therefore, that I desire to speak to you to-day. Now, next came to my mind what should be the tone which I should adopt. Shall it be the tone of sadness, as of a last dying speech and confession, or shall I say that which Ifeel-—that I am as happy as a man can feel under the circumstances in which I now am? I have been a judge assisted by you all, by most of you who are here present, by almost all the profession, for twenty-nine years and some months. I believe myself it is the longest period ever known during which a judge has sat on the bench as a judge. I believe so ; but I am not quite sure. I have ceased to be a judge, and the Queen has given me an unusual mark of approval, and that mark and your presence here to-day, and saying what you have said, have made me not only happy, but happy as ll. man can possibly be. You have mentioned the mode in which, or the circumstances under which, I became a judge. Well, all I will say to all of you is this—I became a judge because I had made up my mind and will from the beginning that I would be a judge. But do not suppose that I had no checks, and that there were not occasionally times when I thought that I was what people call passed over, which never really exists, as there is nothing to pass over, because we are all equals; but what I said to myself was, “ Never mind, this is butacheck, but I will go on and I will get to the top if it is possible to do so." I recommend that to you all. I may say this as to my own method since I was a judge—I feel confident that never on any one single occasion at any period of my judicial career have I done anything except try, from the beginning of each case until it was ended, to get at the truth of the matter. I have never allowed my attention to be called to anything else in court. I have listened to witnesses ; I have listened to arguments, and I have tried to test them and to consider them as they went on ; and my great desire was, first of all, to come to a right determination as to what was the truth of the case in respect of which tho parties were in dispute. I speak, of course, of civil actions. I have never been an enemy to the preliminary mode of investigation before the case comes into court. I have been a supporter of the means by which the parties can bring themselves to the real issue. I think that those means are sometimes, and not seldom, abused; that people will take objections and ask questions and insist on rights which are not wanted in the particular case. But, however that may be, when once the case has come into court, my desire and effort have been to get at what is the true state of things ; and whether there has been a proper compliance with the preliminary steps at that moment has become entirely immaterial. I never could bring myself to think that a judicial tribunal ought to allow a person's rights to be overthrown because there had been some mistakes made in the preliminary steps or investigations by those who were his advisers. Well, having got, as I have tried to get, at the true facts of the case, I then had to consider what was the law. I am speaking, as I have said, of civil actions and disputes between parties. The duty of the judge is to find out what is the rule which people of candour and honour and fairness in the position of the two parties would apply in respect to the matter in hand. That is the common law of England, and there is no other law. It is not only the common law, but if we go to equity it is the same thing. The law of England is not a science; it is a practical application of the rules of right and wrong to the particular case before the court. And. the canon of law is that that rule should be adopted and applied to the case which people of honour and candour and fairness in such a. transaction would apply each to the other. Now, if that be so, if any supposed rule of law is put forward which would prevent the rule of right being applied, the supposed rule of law must be wrong ; and if it ever be alleged that the law will prevent the truth being established and oblige the court to say that that is not true which is true—if ever any such rule of law is attempted to be put forward it must be wrong, and I have always said so. Now, what the rules of right and wrong in the particular case are must be determined in each particular case; but nobody can have read the reports of decisions of great judges from the earliest times in England without trying to find in those reports the mode and manner in which those judges have stated the rule of conduct of the court, and that is what is called authority. But no decision—at least, in my opinion—of any judge as to the rule of law other than in an Act of Parliament can compel any court now to say that they were prevented from deciding that to be true which was in reality true ; there is no such thing in the law as a rule which says that the court shall determine that to be true which the court believes andknows to be untrue. Now, those being the rules of conduct which I have laid down for myself, I have tried to carry those rules through. I have been assisted, as you must all know, by judges sitting with me, whose aid has been to me inestimable. I have been fortunate enough to retire, as I may say, with a mark, an unusual mark, given to mc—a mark which I think has never been given to any judge for more legal conduct since the time of Lord Coke. have received that mark from the Queen, and that mark can leave nothing for me to wish. I now have received from you this kind greeting, and I have only one painful word, as tho Attorney-General has said, to use from beginning to end, and that is to say to all of you, Good-bye.

Lord Esnsn then bowed to the Bar, and, having shaken hands with some of the judges, retired.

\V.\iir<irz0 ro INTENDING Horse Pcncnassas AND Lassiiizs.-—Beforc purchasing or rentjfi a house, have the Sanitary Arrangements thoroughly Examined, Tes , and Reported Upon by nu Expert from Messrs. Carter Bros., 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee quoted on receipt of full particulars. (Established 21 years.)—[Aovr.]

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

GENERAL.

At the opening of the Manx High Court on Monday the Clerk of the Rolls made a sympathetic allusion to the resignation of Sir W. L. Drinkwater, the First Deemster. He had occupied a seat on the Bench for a period of time unexamlpled in the annals of the country, and they all knew

ow he had fulfilled t e arduous duties connected with it. His retirement had called forth ex ressions of regret from the Legislature, from the bench, from the bar, andp from the general public such as no other event in our time had called forth. The cause was not far to seek. Mr. Ring, on behalf of the Bar, said that they were all of one mind with his Honour and reciprocated the sentiments which he had expressed.

A correspondent of the St. Jame.r’a Gazelle says that O’Connell was counsel in a case before Lord Norbury, who, it will be remembered, had been one of the old school of fire-eating barristers in Ireland, and when raised to the Bench reminded his Bar of this bx observing that he hoped to give satisfaction to them on the bench, an off if necessary. In the course of O‘Connel1’s argument, Lord Norbury, who evidently was not in best of humours, interrupted him several times somewhat unnecessarily, and at last O’Connell paused in his argument and said, “ I am afraid that your lordship does not apprehend Inc " ; whereupon Lord N orbury retorted, “ Then the fault must be mine, for there is no one in Ireland who can be so easily apprehended when he wishes it as Mr. O’Connell.”

The Council of Legal Education will shortly consider the appointments of the readers in the law of real and personal property and conveyancing, common law, equity, evidence, procedure and criminal law, constitutional law and legal history, Roman law, jurisprudence, and international law ; and the assistant readers in the law of real and personal property and conveyancing, common law, equity, Roman law, jurisprudence, and international law. The council will be glad to receive, not later than Monday, the 22nd of November, at the oflice of the council, Lincoln’s-inn Hall, the names of any gentiemen who are desirous of being appointed, together with any testimonials they may wish to submit to the council.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

There have been a host of corrections of Lord Esher’s notion that he had served longer than any judge. Correspondents of the Times point out that Lord Mansfield surpassed him by four years, having presided $22 lthe Couat of King's Bench for upwards of thirty-two years,

- 788, an continuing to exercise the oflice of Lord Chief Justice until the age of eighty-four; that Mr. Justice Heath (known as “ Plain John Heath,” because he refused lmilglhthood) was appointed a Judge of the Common Pleas on the 19th of J y, 1780, and sat till his death on the 16th of January, 1816, over thirty-five years; that Robert Price, appointed a Baron of the E_xchequer in 1702, died a Justice of the Common Pleas in 1733 ; and SI!‘ Thomas Parker, who was made a Baron of the Exchequerin 1738, resigned the Chief Baronship in 1772.

On the 16th of November, being the grand day of Michaelmas Term, the treasurer (Mr. Mattinson, Q.C.) and benchers of Grs.y’s-inn entertained at dinner the following guests —viz., His Royal Highness Prince Christian, K.G., the Master of the Rolls (the Right Hon. Sir Nathaniel Lindley), Colonel the Hon. Charles Eliot, Lord Justice Henn Collins, Mr. Justice Bigham, Mr. Justice Darling, the Attorney-General, Sir Henry H. Howorth, K.C I.E., M.P., the President of the Incorporated Law Society (Mr. \Villiam Godden), His Honour Judge Snagge, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Verey, and Mr. Crackanthorpe, Q.C. The benchers present in addition to the treasurer were Muster the Right Hon. Lord Ashbourne (Lord Chancellor of Ireland), Master the Right Hon. Lord Shand, Master Hugh Shield, Q,.C., Master Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., Master James Sheil, Master Beetham, Master Rose, Master His Honour Judge Paterson, Master Mulligan, Q,.C., Master Lewis Coward, Master Macaskie, Master Lush, Master Dicey, C.B., Master Barnard, and the Preacher (the Rev. J . H. Lupton, D.D.).

On the 11th inst. the University of Cambridge conferred the degree of LL.D. (lronoris cauad) upon the Lord Chief Justice of England. Subsequently the Vice-Chancellor entertained a distinguished party of the legal profession in the hall of Downing College. The Lord Chief Justice, in replying to the toast of his health, said that the gathering of that night between the University and the profession of the law was, to his mind, most appropriate. He referred principally to the part of the curriculum which had to do with the teachin of the law itself. He did not say for one moment with regard to the gniversity that it had not done a great and useful work in the teaching of the law from its scientific aspects, but he must say, and he was old enough to sa , that the state of legal education in this country was not what it ought to be. He spoke for himself, and he still cherished the hope that it would be in their t me that there would be a great school of law established in London, not in conflict but running harmoniously with the sister Universities, so that the study of the law might be scientifically treated for the benefit of those who desired to take up the profession. Until something like that was arrived at he maintained that they would never have that class of jurists which other countries could boast of. The profession of a barrister was one which had many privileges, and one to which there were many otilces open. In fact, a barrister of seven years’ standing was eligible for the highest position in the country. Having regard to that, could they continue to claim those exceptional privileges except by showing to the world that the men who claimed to possess those privileges had a just right to possess them by the means of their superior attainments?

[merged small][merged small][graphic]

Dfie Arrrnr. Couar Mr. Justice Mr. Justice

' No. 2. Noarn. Srrnnmu. Monday, Nov. ............. ..22 Mr. Farmer Mr. Beal Mr. Rolt Tuesday King Leach Godfrey Wednesday Farmer Beal Bolt Thursday . King Leach Godfrey Frida Farmer Beal llolt Saturday .... King Leach Godfrey

Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Mr. Justice
Krxmvrcn. Rornra. Brass-

Monday, Nov. ........22 Mr. Jackson Mr. Pemberton Mr. Pugh
Tuesday 23 Car-rington \VarLl Lavre
Wednesday . 24 Jackson Pemberion Pugh
Thursday 26 Carrington Ward Lavie
26 Jackson Pemberton Pugh
Satur y 27 Car-rington Ward Lsvie

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.

[ocr errors]

THE PROPERTY MAR I‘.
SALES OF ENSUING WEEK.

Nov. 23.—Mea~un. Danssmur, Tawsos. Fauna, & Brunaruvnrca, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Estates at Brentwood, libaex; to be sold in 16 Lots. embracing in all 450 acres, with old Mansion House and Cottage Propcrt . Solicitors, Messrs. Hawks, Stokes, & McKevvan, London. £18,700 Four-and-n-half per Cent. Debenture Stock of the Kingsbury Brewery Co.; also Short Leasehold Investment in the_City of London. Solicitors, Messrs. FitzHugh, Woolley, Baines, & Woolley, of Bnghton. (Sec

advertisements, Nov. 6, p. 23.) _ Nov 26.—-Messrs. BAKER K: Sous, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Investments producing £630 per annum, secured upon Properties at Sidcup, &c. Solicitors, Messrs. Lumley & umlev, London. (See advertisement. Nov. 6, p. 22.) RESULTS OF SALES. At Messrs. H. E. Fosran 8: Canu-'rsr..n's Monthly Property Auction, held at the Mart, qn Wednesday last, a Freehold Ground-rent of £30 16s. 8d. per annum, being one

[graphic]
[graphic]

twelfth of a sum of £370 per annum, secured on 81 shops and houses at Chelsea, was sold ‘

for £1,820, which works out at ii little under 60 years’ purchase. At the same time they also disposed of aProflt Rental of £60 per annum for tive years on the biniincss premises, No. 18, Tottenhsm Court-road. for £150. l

The above firm also held their 607th Periodical Sale of Reversions, Life Policies, &c., on

TllUTB£l:Q,y last. at the Mart, E.C., when the following were the Lots Sold :

R ERSIONS : £ s. d. Absolute to £12,000Cash; life aiged 60 Sold 6,926 0 0 Absolute to 328 Cumulative Pre eronce Shares of £10 each in

John Fowler &Co., Leeds; life 67 ... ,, 1,160 O 0 LIFE INTEREST: In about £730 per annum ,, 5,900 0 0 RENT-CHARGE N POSSESSION : Of £200 per annum. &c. . . . ,, 8,060 0 0

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

Cnimcir Sriinr (SOUTH Snoas) Lasn SYNDICATE, Liuirrcn—Creditors are required, on or before Dec 15, to send their names rind addresses. and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Thomas Forrester, 15, Withnell rd, South Shore, Blackpool. Hardman, Blackpool, solor to liquidator

Cooroaanin Cnx-rn.ar., Liiii-rso—Petn for winding un, presented Nov 10, directed to be heard on Nov 24. Beall & Co, Thro morton House, Copthall avenue. solors for petners. Notice of appearing must remix the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in

he afternoon of Nov 23

Dasviioo Sriiiso WIIBEL Co, Liam-rn—1’etn for winding up, presented Oct 25, directed directed to be heard on Nov 24. Ward 8: Co, 85, Graccchurch st, solor for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon ol Nov 23

Finsr Mon-roaos DEBENTURE asn Siicniii-rias Cosroaarios, Liirr"rao-Creditors are required, on or before Dec 16, to send in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Arthur James Scllars. ~18, Copthall uvenue

Gso. G. Riirrv, Luiri-an (IN LlQlJlli.\TlON3—Cl‘€(l.lli0!'8 are required, on or before Dec 18, to send their names and addresses, an the particulars o their debts or claims, to fiiotgert William Bilby, 9, Buclrlersbury. Famihawe, 25, Buckleisbury, solor to liqui

a r

Nlw Qnsss Gorn Misisci Co, Liiii'rrn—Creditors are required, on or before Jan 1, to Btllld their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr James Durie Pattullo, 71 and 72, King William st. Davidson & Morriss, 40 and 42, Queen Victoria st, solors to liquidator

Noiiru or Eoiior: Gas Ll0HT asp Coir: Co, Liiii-rr-:o—Credit0rs are required, on or before Wednesday, Dec 8, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Thomas Hay, 9. Linco1n'sinn fields. Tuesday, Jan 11, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adj udicating upon the debts and claims

Paar Isnvsraiss Simniclirii, Liiiiran (is Lionin1i'rios)—Credit0rs are required, on or before Nov 21, to send in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims. to H. Underwood, 15, Walbrook

Slim: AND Msnsar S-nun SHIP Co, Liui-ri:n—Creditors are required, on or before Dec 13, to _se_nd their names and addresses, and the particulars o their debts or claims, to William Crossman Spencer, -11, North John st, Liverpool. Collins 8: Co, Liverpool, solors for liquidator

"Sr. Di_ri~'is” Bran: SHIP Co. Liui'ran—Creditors are required on or before Dec 13, to send_in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Wilhiim Crossmrin Spencer, /.1, North John st, Liverpool. Collins 6‘: Co, Liverpool, solors for liquidator

" Sr. Gaoaoa ' STEAM Snir Co, Lisii-ran—Creditors are required, on or before Dec 13, to send_in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Crossmiin Spencer, 4|, North John st, Liverpool. Collins & Co, Liverpool, solors for liquidator

Tarnaoi\a_Corrsa Tavsax Co, Liin-rii;o~Creditors are required, on or before Dec 22, to sen_d_ their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Thomas Philip Pugh, J .P., Morgan st, Tredegar. Dauncey, Trcdegar, solor to liquidator

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DLSSOLVED.

Lovlii. ED\VAkD Lonas, Manriira UNITY PIIlLAN'1‘llBOl‘IC Issrrrurios, Windsor Hotel,

Yriysbwl, Pontypridd, Glam. Nov 3

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Bsanii0.\"r 8: HEATIICOTB, Lini-rao—Creditora are required, on or before Wednesday, Dec 22, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Lonsdnle Broderick, 104, King st, Manchester. J . 6: E. Whitworth, Manchester, solors for lifiuidntor

Eoiiossos’s ASIIONA Co, Lim-i-izn—Creditors are required, on or before Monday, March 1-I, to send their names and addrases, rind the particulars of their debts or c aims, to Mr. Lydst/one Joseph Langmead,23, College hill, London. Monday, March 28, at 12, at. the chambers of the Registrar, Companies (Winding up), is appointed for hearing and lLll]\ltll!!&f.1l1g upon the debts and claims

Joiis Wiicsrlirr & Co, Lixirro-—Petn for winding up will be heard on Friday, Dec 3. Emmet & Co, 14, Bloomsbury sq, agents for Robert Innes Manchester. Notice of igppeéiring must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of

ec

Nsw S_ou'rii WALES Assnsiixca COBl'OBA'l‘10N, Liar-riio—Creditors are required to send in particulars of their debts or claims, on or before Jan 15, to J . E. Bowes and F. H. Johnson, Equitable Building, George st, Sydney, N.S.W.

Nor-ris_oiiAir Oi-saiiriva Taitoiis’ Co-orsau-rvs Sociiirv, Linn-an — Creditoni are required, on or before Dec 15. to send in their names and addresses, and particulars of their debts or claims, to William B. Hamilton, 4, Bridlesmith gate, Nottingham

Scoi-r’s Srzisnaiin P.\'KU)f.\TlC Tvar: Co, Lnii-rsn—Oreditors are required, on or before

§J an 1, to send in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Ward 6: Co, 7, King st, Chea 'de, solors for liqiudators

T. B. Hninisos & Co, Lllll'1‘ED—61'mEd1lD1'B are r uired, on or before Dec 11, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars ofetdieir debts or claims, to William Barclay Peat, 3, Lolhbury

1897 JUBILKI Si-i-as Srsnrcnr Linn-ao—Creditors are required, on or before Dec 28, to send in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Henry Charles Wilson, 1, \Vest st, Finsbury circus. Board, G, King st, Cheapsiile, sulor

for liquidator FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DIBSOLVED. Biuiuzs LABOUR!!!’ Fsissntv SOCIETY, Girls’ Schooli-com, Upper Brailes, Shipston-onStour, Warwick. Nov 8

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

CREDITORS’ NOTICES.
UNDER 22 8! 23 VICT. CAP. 35.
Lasr Dav or CLAII.
London Ga.!tU€.--TUESDAY, Nov. 2.

Brcit, CHARLOTTE, South Norwood Nov 26 Ieader, St Paul's churchyard

Bnaxaxoaa, J ossrn, Wolverhampton Nov 15 Court 8: Perry, Wolverhampton

Crnoir, Enwiiim, Sidmouth, Devon Nov 29 Hargrove, Austin Friars

Coorlii, Gnoizoa Cars-ririi, Addlestone, Surrey Dec 9 Johnson & Master, Theobalds rd.
COVIBDALI, HINBY, Kingston upon Hull Dec 8 Coverdale, Kingston upon Hull
Davy, FRANCIS, Riversmeet, Topsham, Devon Nov 30 Ford 8: Co, Exeter

Drcxrssos, Saaiiii Nos-rnrso, Sutton, Surrey Nov 22 Kerby, Lancaster place, Strand
Docs, J oils, Dewsbury, York, Butcher Nov 28 Dwyer, Dewsbury

Fariuus, FBANCEB Auousra Witnians, Whitchurch, nr Pangbourne, Oxford Dec 10

Booper 8: Whately. Lincoln's inn fields Gissoii, Rev Roiiiiar Boivsass, Hampsteud Dec 13 James 8: James, Ely pl, Holborn

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

. Oao, BARAII, Clifton, Glos Dec 8 Wells & Hind, Nottingham

« PreviousContinue »