Page images

and we shall be glad to know what is the feeling of yourself and the profession on the subject.


Bury, Lancashire, June 10.

[See “Current Topics.”—ED. S. J.]

By the AUTHORS. The “Law Notes ” Publishing Offices, 25 and

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] 26, Chancery-lane, W.C.

Sir,- Permit us to call attention to the decision last week of & The activity of the Legislature has compelled Messrs. Gibson and Altree; in which it was held, on appeal from a county court, that a

Divisional Court (Day and Lawrance, JJ.) in a case of Altree v. Weldon to make considerable changes in this useful compilation; bill of 'sale in favour of a linnited company was void, as not being in and, in order to secure room for new statutes, such as the Sale of accordance with the statutory form, because the company was Goods Act, 1893, and the Trustee Act, 1893, statutes of less general described by its corporate name only, without any statement of its interest or suitable rather for special treatment have been excluded. The present volume accordingly omits the subjects of

office or place of business.

We think this decision, if upheld, must invalidate the great county courts, ecclesiastical law, inclosure of commons, and shipping law. The chief statute under the last head is the Merchant Shipping Act, i majority of bills of sale given to joint-stock companies, as the 1894, and, from the student's point of view, this Act, with its 748 general practice of conveyancers is to describe such companies sections, is well out of the way. The treatment of the statutes which by name only, and, so far as our experience goes, it has never have been included is marked by great thoroughness - thoroughness in when they happen to be grantees under a bill of sale.

hitherto been supposed that any further description is required some cases, we should have thought, almost beyond the needs of the student, though it gives the volume a greater chance of serving as a authority, the decision is wrong, and we are strongly urged by

For our own part we are satisfied that, both on principle and on compendium for the practising lawyer. Act, 1883, is an Act to which specially detailed consideration has counsel to appeal further ; but unfortunately the court would only been given. The statutes are grouped under headings according to of both sides, and, as these could easily be made to amount to more

give permission on condition of our paying in any event the costs their subjects, and the subjects are arranged in alphabetical order. than the sum at stake, we are practically compelled to submit to Headings which contain collections of statutes, of special importance what we feel to be an erroneous and mischievous decision. are "Conveyancing and Law of Property," "Inland Revenue,

June 13.

CLAIMANTS' SOLICITORS. “ Landlord and Tenant,” and “Trustees.' As a guide to statute law the student will find the book ample for his requirements, and to

[See “ Current Topics.”—ED. S. J.] the practitioner it will serve as a handy book of reference.


Ruling Cases. Arranged, Annotated, and Edited by ROBERT

Re THE EARL OF SEFTON. C, A, No. 2, 14th June. CAMPBELL, M.A., Barrister-at-Law, Advocate of the Scotch Bar, and late Fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge ; assisted by other Members LUNATIC DIRECTING COMMITTEE TO ELECT TO ACCEPT A Deyise to Lunatic


COURT-BENEFIT OF LUNATIC-PECUNIARY BENEFIT-Srat. PREROGATIYA Judge-Landlord and Tenant. Stevens & Sons (Limited). Price

Regis (17 E. 2, Stat. 1.) c. 10-LUNAOY Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 25s. net.

c. 5). The Law Relating to the Administration of Charities under the In this case a devise of land had been made to the lunatic on the conCharitable Trusts Acts, 1853-1894, and Local Government Act, 1894. dition that within a year after the death of the devisor the devisee should By THOMAS BOURCHIER-CHILCOTT, Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & execute a rosettlement of certain family estates; and the question now Haynes.

to be decided was whether the court had jurisdiction to direct the com

mittee of the lunatic to elect on behalf of the lunatic to accept the devise A Handy Book on the Law of Master and Servant, Employer and and to execute the resettlement. The Earl of Sefton had become a Employed, chiefly as Regards their Civil Rights. By JAMES WALTER | lunatic in consequence of a serious accident which he sustained, and was SMITH, Esq., LL.D., Barrister-at-Law. New Edition. By GEORGE in June, 1897, was tenant for life of settled estates producing a net rental

His father, the previous Earl of Sefton, who died FREDERICK EMERY, Esq., LL.M., Barrister-at-Law. Effingham Wilson,

of about £30,000 a year, and was also absolute owner of estates pro

ducing about £21,000 a year. The present earl had, before he became & Gibson and Weldon's Aid to Equity. Intended as a Guide to that lunatic, and before his father's death, barred the entail, but without the difficult but essential work, Snell's Principles of Equity (12th edition) consent of his father as the protector of the settlement, and had therefore Sixth Edition. By the Authors. The “Law Notes” Publishing

acquired only a base fee. By his will the late earl gave his unsettled Offices.

estates, subject to a term of 1,000 years given to trustees for certain purposes, to the present earl for life, with remainder to his issue in tail male; and then for similar estates to a younger son of the late earl and

his issue, with remainders over. The will directed that every person who CORRESPONDENCE.

should thereunder become entitled (subject to the term of 1,000 years) as

tenant for life or tenant in tail male by purchase to the possession of the PARTICULARS OF TESTATORS' DISPOSITIONS. devised estates, and who should also become entitled as tenant in tail

male or in tail, whether by purchase or descent, to the possession of the [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

settled estates should, within one year after becoming so entitled under Sir,-It has been for a long time now the practice for the proprie- both the will and the settlement (or, if he was an infant, within a year tors. of newspapers to obtain from the Probate Court and publish after attaining twenty-one), disentail the settled estates and resettle particulars of the dispositions made by testators, and it has now

them on the same trusts as the devised estates. If the person so becom, assumed such proportions that we think it is time to consider whether ing entitled did not do this, the estate devised to him was to cease and it should be allowed to continue.

determine. The testator also bequeathed a sum of £10,000 to the present We all know that if there is one thing more than another that earl if he should execute the resettlement, and directed that in that event clients desire it is privacy, and it seems to us to be very wrong, that be paid by the executors. Some of the next-of-kin of the present earl

the present earl's debts (which were stated to amount to £31,000) should in order to gratify public curiosity the papers should have the liberty took out a summons asking that the committee might be directed to of extracting from the office where wills are proved, and publishing execute, in the name of the lunatic and on his behalf, a resettlement in to the world, information relating to the most private affairs of life. accordance with the testator's will. The Master refused the application, We have known cases where the utmost pain has been caused, and which was then made to the Lords Justices in Lunacy. It was opposed by actually in a recent case under our notice a paper commented on the the present earl's next younger brother, who would be a loser if it were legal effect of certain bequests (about which there was not, and would successful. not be, any litigation or question), saying (from a garbled extract

The Court (LINDLEY, M R., and Chitty and Collins, L.JJ.) granted from the will) that it ought to have said so-and-80. That report was

the application. copied into numberless other papers verbatim, and so was published should have liked to do-take a little more time to consider this case.

LINDLEY, M.R., said: I do not think we are in a position to do what we over and over again all over the counties in which the testator was Time presses. If this election is to be made at all, it must be made praco known, and to such an extent that it was quite impossible to have it tically at once ; and, having had an opportunity of considering the matter, corrected, and has caused much annoyance and pain to relatives. I have come to a tolerable clear opinion that we have jurisdiction to make

It is easy to suggest a remedy for all this, if what we call atten- this order, and that we ought to exercise that jurisdiction. I will not go țion to is known in legal circles to be an evil that ought to be checked, I through the whole of this very long will. In substance the case stands

[ocr errors]

thus. The court has to consider whatought to be done under the following circumstances. Lord Sefton is unfortunately a lunatic. He is entitled

High Court-Chancery Division. to certain settled estates of considerable value. Then there is a will—the will of his father--which leaves him another large property, called the Sefton GRAND JUNCTION WATERWORKS co. v. TIE HAMPTON URBAN estates, on condition that he resettles, and thereby cuts down-not DISTRICT COUNCIL. Stirling, J. 7th, 8th, and 14th June. destroys, but only cuts down-his interest in the settled estate. Bearing LOCAL AUTHORITY-PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES-DECLARATION AS in mind that under his father's will he gets not only a large estate, but also other benefits—the legacy of £10,000 and the payment of his debts-it

TITLE-EQUITY JURISDICTION-PUBLIC HEALTH (BUILDING is obvious that from one point of view, and that one which the court will

STREETS) Act, 1888, s. 3. take into consideration, it is to his advantage to accept this devise. What,

This was an action by the piaintiff company asking for a declaration then, ought to be done? If this gentleman is in the least degree likely to that they were entitled to erect an engine-house and any other buildings live, and is actuated by the feelings by which sons usually are or ought to they might think fit upon a piece of land purchased by them at Upper be actuated, there can be no question that he would accept the Sefton Sunbury-road, Hampton, within the defendants' district, without the estates on the conditions stated in the will. There are obvious family consent of the defendants. The plaintiffs were a waterworks company advantages in so doing, I am not at all prepared to say that it is the duty constituted under an Act of 51 Geo. 3, c. 169 and other Acts mentioned of the court to look only to the question of the lunatic's pecuniary benefiť. in the preamble to their Act of 1852, to supply water to a large district It is for his benefit to do what his father wished, and to keep the two on the western side of London. By the Grand Junction Waterworks estates together. It is in this case for his pecuniary interest, because Act, 1852, the plaintiffs were empowered to make and maintain certain he will get a great deal more money if he accepts the devise. It is for the works therein described. In 1853, under the powers of the Act of 1852, benefit of the lunatic that he should perform the condition upon which they acquired the piece of land in question at Upper Sunbury-road, and alone he can obtain, or at least can keep, the Sefton estate. I say keep it built waterworks thereon. In 1897 the plaintiffs desired to extend their rather than get it, because under the will he has got it, and he will lose it works and to erect an engine-house on the said piece of land in connection if he does not resettle it. Let us look at the matter, first, apart from the with their existing works. A dispute arose between the plaintiffs and the Lunacy Act, 1890. I go by steps. Speaking generally, and without defendants as to whether the plaintiffs could erect an engine-house reference to the statute De Prerogativa Regis, I take it that these propositions without the consent of the defendants. At defendants' request copies of are elementary and indisputable: first, a lunatic can accept a gift of property, the plans and sections of the engine-house were sent to the defendants. or a bequest or a devise of property ; second, a lunatic can accept on the 20th of October, 1897, the plaintiffs gave the defendants notice a gift or legacy upon conditions provided that the gift and those that they intended to proceed with the engine-house, and commenced the conditions are for his benefit; thirdly, if a lunatic is entitled to work. On the 11th of November, 1897, the defendants' clerk wrote to property upon conditions, it is the duty of his committee to do the plaintiffs' solicitors that if the work was proceeded with he was all that is necessary to preserve the property by performing the directed to take proceedings against the plaintiffs for contravening the conditions. Authority for the last of these propositions will be found in Public Health (Building in Streets) Act, 1888. . On the 15th of December, Collinson’s Lunacy, vol. i., p. 294: " If any part of the estate be liable to 1897, the plaintiffs gave the defendants rotice that they intended to forfeiture, or held upon conditions, it is his (the committee's) duty, if proceed with the building, and they actually did so and spent a considerpossible, to protect it from the forfeiture, to satisfy the conditions, and, able sum of money before the writ in this action was issued. On the 7th when necessary, to apply to the Chancellor for directions." All that i of March, 1898, the plaintiffs received notice from the defendants that the take to be perfectly settled law. Now, suppose one of the conditions is erection of the building was contrary to section 3 of the Public Health that the lunatic shall give up some interest in real property to which he is (Building in Streets); Acts, 1888, and requesting a discontinuance of the entitled, the general principle just laid down will apply to that case. offence. The plaintiffs issued their writ in this action on the 12th of There is nothing I know of in the statutory law contrary to that view, March: On the 15th of March the defendants laid an information before except the provision in the old statute De Prerogativa. That Act has been the Middlesex magistrates against the plaintiffs for contravening the construed in such a way as to prevent the court from selling or mort-Public Health (Building in Streets) Act, 1888, and a summons was issued gaging the estates of lunatics for the purpose of raising money, even when summoning the plaintiffs to appear before a court of summary juristhe lunatic was in danger of arrest under a ca. sa., or was in prison. That diction. This summons was heard on the 9th of May, and the magis was rather a narrow construction, perhaps. But the language of the Act trates' decided adversely to the plaintiffs. The magistrates' decision was is important. The purpose of the enactment is, that if the lunatic capable of revision by a Divisional Court and the defendants contended recovers what is not required for his maintenance will be handed over to - first, that the Chancery Division had no jurisdiction to make the him, and if he dies it will go as his property ought to go. In no way is declaration prayed for in the action; and, secondly, that the court in the it to be aliened. The courts have held that they had no power to alien exercise of its discretion ought not to make any such declaration, but that the lunatic's property, even for the lunatic's benefit, the object of the Act the plaintiffs ought to be left to make their defence before the tribunal being to preserve the property for him or his representatives. But it which was the proper one under the statutes involved to deal with the seems to me that we shall be producing for the first time a still narrower question. construction, if we say, under the stress of this Act, which was passed for STIRLING, J.-The question is, ought I to allow this action to go on? a totally different purpose, that we are incompetent to sanction giving up ^ The statement of claim and writ simply ask for a declaration, and the a small part of the lunatic's real estate for the purpose of saving for him form of the action is justified by an appeal to ord. 25, r. 5. The last a far larger part of it. I agree it would not do to say that because we section of that rule is expressed in the widest terms, but it is contended on think our predecessors made a mistake we are going to construe the Act the other hand that these wide words must be read with some limitation. differently. But I am not disposed to press a narrow construction beyond. It does not seem to me that I am called on to decide whether the words what is necessary. It seems to me we should be making a very bad ought to be limited or no. I am not satisfied that in this case there precedent if we were to hold that this statute of Edward 2, passed to is an entire absence of jurisdiction to give relief. The material authorities preserve the property of lunatics, prevented us doing what is for the seem to me to be three. The first is Lord Auckland v. Westminster Local advantage of the lunatic, even in relation to property, and also in other Board of Works (20 W. R. 845, 7 Ch. App. 597). That was a cage on the ways. If, then, we have jurisdiction in the matter, it seems to me it Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862, and the Court of Appeal follows as a matter of course, in these circumstances, without invoking the held that the District Board of Works ought to have given an owner of land Act of 1890 at all, that we ought to exercise that jurisdiction. I will compensation under section 74 of that Act, and that the threat under now say a word or two about the Lunacy Act, 1890. It was very section 75 to demolish houses erected on the land was ultra vires, and strenuously contended by Mr. Farwell that certain sections in that act that the Board might accordingly be restrained by the Court of Chancery. authorized the court to make the order here asked for. I think we should This case was criticized by Sir George Jessel sitting as Master of the be making a bad precedent if we were to say that. We cannot, I think, Rolls in Kerr v. The Corporation of Preston (25 W. R. 265, 6 Ch. D. 463), bring this case within the language of the Act of 1890 without unduly who there refused to grant an injunction to restrain the local authority straining that language; and I base my judgment upon the inherent from taking summary proceedings before the magistrates for the recovery jurisdiction of the court, which is not bounded by the cases enumerated of penalties for an offence against the Public Health Act, 1875. The in that Act. With respect to section 124, of which we heard so much, third case is Stannard v. Vestry of St. Giles, Camberwell (30 W. R. 693, 20 and which enacts that the committee of the estate, or such person as the Ch. D. 190). That case was a dispute about a drain. The defendants judge approves, shall in the name and on behalf of the lunatic execute and gave notice to the plaintiff that they would enter on his land to reinstate do such assurances and things for giving effect to any order under this the drain, but abandoned this intention and took proceedings against him Act as the judge directs, and every such assurance and thing shall be before the magistrates. The plaintiff claimed an injunction to restrain valid and effectual, and shall take effect accordingly”—I do not invoke both the intended trespass and the proceedings. It was held that as no that at all. That section, I think, is put in to supply a possible defect or intention to commit a trespass bad been proved or alleged, the plaintiff remove a possible doubt. That view does not, however, prevent the court had not made out his cue for an injunction against the trespass, and from doing the very same thing under its general jurisdiction. I look that being so the court had no jurisdiction to restrain the proupon that section simply as an enabling clause. I cannot help thinking ceedings before the magistrates. That being the state of the that we should be doing quite wrong were we to give effect to any con- authorities I do not think it would be right for me to say that tention which cuts down the power of the court in this matter. If the there is absolutely no jurisdiction in this court to restrain the case had been pressed I should have liked to look at some authorities, to proceedings before the magistrates. In this case, as in Stannard's case, make sure that I have not made any mistake. As to the principles upon there is no evidence that the local board intend to commit any trespass, which I have proceeded I do not feel the slightest doubt. I think this and there is therefore no ground for the interference of the court on tbe application ought to be granted.

footing that the defendants threaten or intend to commit any illegal act. CHITTY and COLLINS, L.JJ., delivered judgment to the same effect. --Now, whether or no there be jurisdiction in the court to restrain by COUNSEL, Farwell, Q.O., and W. H. Cozens-Hardy; Warrington, Q.C., and injunction in such a case as the present, it seems to me that this power Arkle ; P. O. Lawrence, Q.O., and Sargant. SOLICITORS, Gedge, Kirby, & should be exercised with the greatest caution, and I respectfully adopt Millett; Field, Roscoe, & Co., for Gibbons | Arkle, Liverpool.

the words of Jeseel, M.R., in Stannard's case : “Where the Legislature [Reported by R. C. MACKENZIE, Barrister-at-Law.1

has pointed out a mode of proceeding before a magistrate it is not, as a

[ocr errors]

general rule, for another court to interfere to stop that proceeding by he claimed that these costs should be taxed upon the scale applicable injunction." And I desire to add that in conflicts between local bodies where the amount recovered was between £20 and £50, on the authority of and private individuals I think that rule ought to be applied very Kemble v. Bennett (1894, 2 Q. B. 329). The registrar held that the costs strictly. I think therefore that in the exercise of the discretion which is should be taxed on the scale applicable to where the amount sought to be vested in the court it ought to be very slow to grant an injunction to recovered was between £2 and 55. The county court judge reversed that restrain proceedings before the magistrate where the Legislature has decision and directed that the costs should be taxed on the higher scale. pointed that out as the proper mode of proceeding. A fortiori it will be The defendant appealed. still less likely to make such a declaration as is asked for in the present The Court (Day and LAWRANCE, JJ.) allowed the appeal. In the case case in the absence of special circumstances. That brings me to the of Kemble v. Bennett the whole of the action was remitted to the county question whether upon the materials before me there are any such court although only a portion of the claim was in dispute. There rightly circumstances shewn. In my judgment there are not. It seems to me the costs were taxed on the higher scale. In this case judgment in the therefore that this is a case in which the court ought not either to inter. High Court had been given as to part of the claim, and the only sum fere by way of injunction or to makc the declaration asked for.-COUNSEL, sought to be recovered in the county court at all was this sum of Bosanquet, Q.C., Macmorran, Q.C., and R. C. Glen; Jenkins, Q.C., and £2 03. 6d. That was the only sum which could be said to have been H, Courthope Munroe. SOLICITORS, Bircham f: Co.; Kent & Son.

recovered in the county court and the costs on the scale applicable to the [Reported by J. I. STIRLING, Barrister-at-Law.]

recovery of a sum between £2 and £5 was the scale under which the

defendant's costs ought to be taxed.–CCUNSEL, R. O. B. Lane ; Villiers TOMS v. CLACTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL. Romer, J. 8th June. Meager. Solicitors, Riddell, Vaizey, & Smith, for Viner, Leeder, f Morris, LOCAL GOVERNMENT-BURIAL_VENDOR AND PURCHASER-BURIAL GROUND Swansea ; Richard White, for Lawrence Richards, Swansea. -FURCHASE OF LAND BY DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR-ACTION TO RESTRAIN

[Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.] BURYING WITHIN PROHIBITED DistanCE FROM DWELLING-House BURIAL Acr, 1855 (18 & 19 VICT. C. 128), s. 9.


Div This was an action for an injunction to restrain the defendants from

Court. 8th June. uring land in their poseession for the purposes of a cemetery, except LICENSING ACTS — JUSTICES — Notice of APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL beyond a radius of 100 yards from the plaintiff's dwelling-house. It Excise LICENCE-HOUSE BEING UNFINISHED NOTICE AFFIXED TO FLOOR appeared that the vendor of the land had sold the fee simple to the de -Such NOTICE SUFFICIENT, fendants for the purposes of a cemetery, and the conveyance contained a covenant by them not to use the land for any other purposes except with justices of Brentford to shew cause why they should not hear and detera

In this case a rule for a mandamus had been granted calling upon certain the vendor's consent. The plaintiff was the occupier of a small cottage mine an application by H. W. Ellis for licences to sell wine, spirits and close to the land. This cottage belonged to the vendor, and the plaintiff beers. No one was instructed by the justices to shew cause, and Master was in his service as gardener. The tenancy appeared to be a weekly Mellor read the following affidavit filed by two of the said justices, which one. By 18 & 19 Vict. c. 128, 8. 9, no ground not already used as or appropriated for a cemetery shall be used for burials within the distance justices of the Brentford Division, at the adjourned, general annual

was as follows: An application was duly made before us and certain other of 100 yards from any dwelling-house without the consent of the owner, licensing meeting at the Town-hall, Brentford, on the 4th of March last, leseee, or occupier of such dwelling-house. The plaintiff was crossexamined with the object of extracting from him the admission that he by Mr. Charles Robinson, solicitor, for Mr. H. W. Ellis, of Clovelly, was plaintiff in name only, and that the real, although not nominal, licence, a spirit-dealer's additional licence, and a wine off-licence, in

Lampton-road, Hounslow, wine merchant, for a beer-dealer's additional plaintiff was bis employer, the vendor of the land.

Romer, J.- I will assume for the purpose of my judgment that the land pursuance of 26 & 27 Vict. c. 33, s. 1; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 21, s. 2; and 23 is subject to the restrictions imposed by the Burial Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 27, e. 3. It was proved before us that the said H. W. Ellis had Vict. c. 85), and the Burial Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 128), or to given the necessary notices to the police and to the overseers, and had analogous restrictions. The vendor granted the land in order that every duly advertised bis application in a local newspaper and had properly his gardener in a cottage near it for the purpose of bringing this action Moss Bros., of the Broadway, St. Margaret's, and Mr. Wicks, publican, part of it should be used for the purposes of a cemetery. He then placed posted his notices on the door of the church of the district. A preliminary and preventing in effect any f it being so used. There is no doubt that of the Turk's Head, St. Margaret's, who were opposing the application, the action in substance is the vendor's action, and the costs of the action will have to be provided by him. Could be then bring an action to pre- the door of the house proposed to be licensed, inasmuch as the house was

that the statutory notice was not complete, as it had not been posted on vent its use for the express purpose for which he sold it? That would be derogating from his grant to the defendants. It must be remembered not completed. The parish constable who had posted the notices having that the defendants are doing nothing illegal. Only they have under the prored on oath to the satisfaction of the justices that the notice was Burial Acts to obtain the statutory consent of the owner to what they are justices thereupon found there was no door in fact on which the notice

affixed to floorboards in the doorway of a building not complete, the doing. The vendor, therefore, could not bring an action.

Could a person in the position of the plaintiff, and acting bonâ fide, do so, that is counsel on behalf of Mr. Ellis, applied to the licensing justices on the

could be posted as directed and required by the statute. Mr. Grain, to say, a lessee or occupier, after and with full knowledge of the vendors adjourned licensed day-viz., the 31st of March, for the justices to re-hear grant and its purpose ? Such a person could not be in any better position his application on the ground that the justices were mistaken in their give a week's notice to the plaintiff at any time. Other grounds might that the notice was bad." Counsel in support of the rule contended that In fact the plaintiff is a weekly tenant only of the vendor, and he could decision, and still had full powers to hear Mr. Ellis's application on its ve stated for dismissing the action. But on the above ground alone the the justices were mistaken and that the notice affixed to the floorboards action fails. I dismiss the action with costs.

The defendants asked for costs as between solicitor and client under in the doorway of the uncompleted building was sufficient to satisfy the the Public Authorities Protecion Act, 1893, citing Harrop v. Ossett

statute. Corporation (46 W. R. 391 ; 1898, 1 Ch. 525). The plaintiff submitted

The Court (Day and LAWRANCE, JJ.), made the rule absolute.that the action was not, within the words of section 1, brought against CounsEL, Grain. SOLICITOR, Charles Robinson, Brentford and London. the defendants “for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended

[Reported by ERSKINE Reip, Barrister-at-Law.] execution of any Act of Parliament or of any public duty or authority,”; the cause of action being one of private right. His lordship reserved

HOW CROFT v. LAYCOCK. Div. Court, 8th June. bis judgment on this point.-Counsel, Levett, Q.C., and C. E. Jones; VENDOR AND PURCHASER-CABBAGE SEEDS - USUAL TRADE DISCLAIMER OF Neville, Q.C., and Ingpen. Solicitors, Jones & Son, Colchester ; Chamberlayne ANY WARRANTY-Seeds TURNED OUT TO BE THose OF A DIFFERENT Short.


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of his Honour Judge Lumley Smith, sitting at the County Court, Westminster. The plaintiff had

supplied some seeds to the defendant's order. When the seeds gent grew High Court-Queen's Bench Division.

up, they proved to be those of another species of cabbage, and valueless

for the purpose for which the purchaser required them. The plaintiff BAILEY v. WATSON. Div. Court. 10th June.

sought to recover the price of the seeds; the defendant counter-claimed

for breach of contract. County Court-Action COMMENCED IN High Count-JUDGMENT AS TO claimer of warranty at the head of the invoice sent when the seeds were

The county court judge held that a disPant of CLAIM-DISPUTED A Mount REMITTED BY REGISTRAR FOR Trial delivered, to the effect that the seller gave no warranty, express for TO COUNTY Corrt-SCALE ON WHICH Costs WERE BE TAXEDCOUNTY COURT ACT, 1888 (51 & 52 Vier c. 43), s. 65.

implied, as to description, quality, productiveness, or any other matter

connected with the seeds he sent out, that he would not be responsible in This was an appeal of the defendant from the decision of the county court in any way for the cryp, and that, if the purchaser did not accept the judge of Swansea as to the scale on which certain costs should be taxed. seeds on those terms, they were at once to be returned, protected the The action was brought in the Swansea Registry of the Bigh Court to plaintiff, and he gave judgment in his favour accordingly. No suggestion recover some £44 and a summops for judgment was taken out under of friud was raised. Order XIV. On the hearing of the summons the district registrar made DAY, J., in giving judgment, said the defendant asked to be supplied an order that the plaintiff should be at liberty to sign final judgment for with seeds of a kind of cabbage called Couve Tronchuda. When the seeds £27 189. 5d. with costs; that the defendant might defend as to £2 03. 60. sent grew up, they turned out to be Jersey kale, a species of cabbage tree (the remainder of the claim being abandoned), and that the action should only suitable for making into walking-sticks. The notice very commonly be remitted to the Swansea County Court The defendant paid the put at the head of seed merchants' bills that they gave no warranty with £27 18s. 5d. with taxed costs, and ultimately the plaintiff recovered the seeds did not entitle the seller to deliver something perfectly different judgment for the disputed belance of £2 0s. 6d, in the county court, and to the thing asked for, and which he undertook to supply. It had been


argued for the plaintiff that, the defendant having accepted the goods, he business carried on by him, whether alone or in partnership with others, must pay the agreed price unless he could shew that the goods had been and whether personally or by an agent, &c.,' and that he did not mean to warranted and had not come up to the warranty. The custom of the say, 'for the purpose of any trade or business carried on by him, or for trade might qualify a contract, but it could not destroy it. A rational the purpose of any other business.?": His lordship did not say whether construction must be put upon the words relied upon. The construction that suggested interpretation was the correct one, but he agreed with desired by the plaintiff to be established by custom of the trade was Cave, J.'s decision that the section did not apply when the money was unreasonable.

lent by the wife for purposes other than those of the husband's trade or LAWRANCE, J., concurred. Appeal allowed ; leave to appeal granted.- bueiness. It was said that Ex parte T'idswell was in conflict with Re Tuff, COUNSEL, A. T. Lawrence, Q.C., and G. B. Hamilton ; Earle. SOLICITORS, Ex parte Nottingham (35 W. R. 567, 19 Q. B. D. 88), but that was not so, G. E. Webb; E. F. & H. Landon.

because in the latter case the wife's proof was admitted, not against her [Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.]

husband, but against a firm of which he was a member.

Rigby and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.JJ., concurred. Appcal dismissed.ALTREE v. ALTREE (STAFFORDSHIRE FINANCIAL CO., Claimants). CounsEL, C. A. Russell, Q.C., and Hansell ; Upjohn, Q.C., and Frank Div. Court. 8th June.


[Reported by F. O. Robinson, Barrister-at-Law.] 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 9. This was an appeal from a county court, and the question was whether a bill of sale was void by reason of the address of the grantees being SOLICITORS ORDERED TO BE STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS. omitted. The material words of the bill of exchange were as follows : 14 June.-RICHARD ARMSTRONG (155, Fenchurch-street, London). This indenture made the 12th day of March, 1898, between John Altree, of Triangle Farm, Chase Town, in the parish of 'Hammerwich, in 14 June :- WILLIAM NORTH (Pudsey, Yorkshire) [facts to be submitted the county of Stafford, farmer, hereinafter called the borrower,' of the

by solicitor in affidavit to Incorporated Law Society for reconsideration]. one part, and the Staffordshire Financial Co. (Limited), hereinafter called 'the lenders,' of the other part." Section 9 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, provides that a bill of sale “shall be void unless made in accordance with the form in the schedule." In the form referred to a blank is left for

NEW ORDERS, &c. the address of the grantee. The county court judge held that the bill of

TRANSFER OF ACTIONS. cale was void. It was contended, on behalf of the appellants, that though it was necessary in a bill of sale to give the address and

ORDER OF COURT. description of the grantor there was no need to give the address or

Thursday, the 9th day of June, 1898. description of the grantee, and further, that even if an individual grantee had to give an address it was not necessary in the case of a

I, Hardinge Stanley, Earl of Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great, limited liability company, because a company could be identified Britain, do hereby order that the action mentioned in the Schedule hereto without an address. The following cases were cited to shew that, as long shall be transferred to the Honourable Mr. Justice Wright. as the variation from the form in the schedule was not a material

SCHEDULE. variation, the bill was not invalidated : Ex parte Stanford (17 Q. B.D. 259),

Mr. Justice Romer (1898–T.-No. 530). Thomas v. Kelly (13 App. Cas., at p. 311), Lindfoot v. Pottett (1895, 5 Ch. 825), Simmons v. Woodward (1892, App. Cas. 100), Murray v. Mackenzie In re Thom, Baker & Company Limited (L. R. 10 C. P. 625), Maugham v. Sharpe (34 L. J. C. P. 19), Parsons V. Beatrice Huxtable (Widow) v. Thom, Baker & Company Limited and Brand (25 Q. B. D. 110), Simmons v. Trollope (1897, 1 Q. B. 24), Dolcini v. Harry Maconochie.

HALSBURY, O. Dolcini (1895, 1 Q. B. 898), Smith v. Hammond (1896, 1 Q. B. 571), Shears 7. Jacob (L. R. 1 O. P. 513). It was contended that the address in the case of a company was mere surplusage inasmuch as it was not required for the purpose of identification. It was also contended that the use of

LAW SOCIETIES. the words “ in accordance with” the form, in section 9, instead of the word “in,” indicated that all that was required was that the bill should

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. be substantially in the form provided.

ANNIVERSARY FESTIVAL. The Court (Day and LAWRANCE, JJ.) dismissed the appeal, on the ground that the provision of section 9 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, Association was held on Wednesday at the Whitehall Rooms, Hôtel

The thirty-eighth anniversary festival of the Solicitors' Benevolent together with the fact that in the form therein referred to a blank was Métropole, Mr. Joseph Addison taking the chair. Among the guests left for the address of the grantee as well as for that of the grantor shewed that the address of the grantee should appear in the bill. -COUNSEL, J. Browne, M.R.C.S., Mr. W. Allen, M.P., Mr. C. Bill, M.P., Mr. T. Skewes

were Mr. Reginald Brown, Mr. Henry Kueeshaw, J.P., Mr. G. Buckston B. Matthews ; Disturnal. SOLICITORS, Smiles & Co.; L. W. Lewis & Sons, Cox, M.P., Mr. E. A. Goulding, M.P. Mr. C. J. Blagg (Cheadle), Mr. Waleall; Pilman & Sons, fur Barnes & Son, Lichfield.

Sidney Smith, Mr. C. E. Jones, Mr. H. Manisty, Mr. H. Morten Cotton [Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.]

(chairman of Board of Directors), Mr. W. Melmoth Walters, Mr. Henry Power, F.R.C.S., Mr. George P. Allen (Manchester), Mr. B. F. Hawksley, Mr. C. G. Boxall, C.B., Mr. J. Roger B. Gregory, Mr, Samuel Harris

(Leicester), Mr. Alexander Neilson, Mr. Richard W. Tweedie, Mons. Bankruptcy Cases.

Rusteyko, Mr. H. J. Osborne (president Shropshire Law Society), Mr. Re CLARK, Ex parte SCHULZE. C. A. 10th June.

Thomas Eggar (president Sussex Law Society), Mr. W. C. H. Cross

(president Bristol Law Society), Mr. J. Prior, Mr. J. A. C. Tanner, Mr. BANKRUPTCY-Proof-LOAN by Wire To HUSBAND-MARRIED WOMEN's James Turner, Mr. C. D. Kimber, M.A., Mr. L. F. Cotton, Mr. M. H. PROPERTY Act, 1882, s. 3.

Cotton, Mr. S. G. Spreat, Mr. A. J. Vere Bass, Mr. A. S. Massey, Mr. This was an appeal from the judgment of Wright, J., holding that the R. S. 'Taylor, Mr. Joseph Soames, Mr. F. Sheffield, Mr. G. Carrick wife of the debtor was entitled to prove against the debtor's estate for (Wisbech), Mr. N. Goddard Jackson, Mr. M. F. Monier-Williams, Mr. money lent by her to her husband. The case turned on the construction J. W. Howlett (Brighton), Mr. J. W. A. Calkin, Mr. Grautham R. Dodd, to be placed on section 3 of the Married Women's Property Act, Mr. A. E. Timbrell, Mr. Wm. Addison, Mr. H. Bevir (Wootton Bassett), 1882, which enacts that “any money or

other estate of the Mr. C. L. Smiles, Mr. W. J. Boycott, Mr. Harry Woodward, Mr. W. B. wife lent or entrusted by her to her husband for the purpose of Harrison, Mr. Archibald Hanbury, Mr. G. Roddam Burn, Mr. Roddam any trade or business carried on by him, or otherwise, shall be treated as W. Burn, Mr. Frank M. Crisp, Mr. J. W. Crisp, Mr. W. J. D. Andrew, aseets of her husband's estate in case of his bankruptcy, under reservation Mr. R. H. Purves, Mr. Henry Tyrrell, Mr. H. R. Tyrrell, Mr. G. E. of the wife's claim to a dividend as a creditor for the amount or value of Tyrrell, Mr. A. J. Harris, Mr. J. A. Collins, Mr. Charles Burgin, Mr. E. euch money or other estate after, but not before, all claims of the other Lambert Burgin, Mr. W. Howard Gray, Mr. E. Cleave, and Mr. J. E. creditors of the husband for valuable consideration in money or money's Stephenson. worth have beer satisfied.” The money in question was not lent by the The loyal toasts having been given from the chair and duly honoured, wife to her husband for the purpose of his trade or business. The wife's The CHAIRMAN proposed “The Solicitors' Benevolent Association, and proof was admitted for voting purposes by the chairman at the first meet. may prosperity continue to attend it.” He said he was proposing that ing of creditors. Wright, J., held that the proof was rightly admitted. which was the chief toast of the evening-indeed, it was the real occasion One of the creditors appealed.

of their meeting, and he thought that this meeting spoke well for the The Court (A. L. SMITH, Riguy, and Vaughan WILLIAMS, L.JJ.) dis- merits of the charity, and for the generous support which it received. missed the appeal.

The association, in choosing its chairman on such occasions, differed from A. L. SMITH, L.J., said that the appellant's contention in effect was most societies. With its influence and with its objects, it would have no that whenever a wife lent money to her husband and he became bank- difficulty in placing in the chair one of great name or of distinguished rupt her claim must be postponed until all the other creditors had been attainments which might add power to the words he should atter. But satisfied. That construction of the section entirely ignored the words, it chose one of its own members, thinking and perhaps wisely—that one for the purpose of any trade or business carried on by him, or other who had toiled in the ranks with their comrades who had fallen by the wise.". The words " or otherwise " did present a difficulty, but whatever way might be best acquainted with the dangers and difficulties that beset their true meeting might te, it could not be that the limitation as to the legal path, and the sad results that awaited upon early death or trade or business was to le cut out. In Ex parte Tidswell (35 W. R. 669) failure. It might be that to some-he hoped to many—that legal path Cave, J., bad to consider the meaning of the section, and he said: "I might have been made smooth by those who had gone before ; but to moet guess, rather than conclude, that the drafte man meant to say,' any money of them it had not been so, and those of them to whom some measure of of the wise lent by her to her husband for the purpose of any trade or succees had been accoided, how well they knew the difficulties and dangers

which they had to go through, how easy it was to take the wrong turning, achieved the thought of which would be most pleasant to them, but the what care was needed, how often that which looked tempting might lead occasions when it had been in their power to help some struggling or to loss, how often that which had promised brightly had turned out to be fallen brother, to bring some help to a stricken home or to those left an absolute failure. And when they thought of the young beginners who desolate, and the recollection that of those amongst whom they had lived started upon that difficult path, inexperienced, eager to work, anxious per- and laboured there were some, he hoped it might be many, who would baps to surround themselves with the comforts of a home, how could they bear them in kindly memory. but sympathize when in that struggle something which seemed tempting in The toast was drunk upstanding and with enthusiasm. business was entered upon and then the result was failure, something which The SECRETARY (Mr. J. T. Scott) announced subscriptions and promised them well but had not fulfilled that promise. Even with the donations amounting to £892, amongst which were the following : The best of efforts misfortune came, and came sometimes quite undeserved, Chairman, £105; Mr. H. Morten Cotton (chairman of the Board of and even when there had been no want of care. Then, too, there was the Directors), £50 ; St. Geo. H. Lewis, £50; Mr. J. W. Howlett (Brighton), sad failure of health-want of strength to fight the battle of life. Or it £50 ; Mr. c. S. Clarke (Brighton), £25; Mr. W. Melmoth Walters, £21.

to some new home and left, not only the vacant place, but left also He said that there was no question there were some drawbacks in connection wretchedness and want to those who remained. Those who administered with the Houses of Parliament. Outsiders could not help seeing some slight this charity knew, as he thought all those who were present knew, that imperfections, just as there were spots upon the sun; but he thought they there was no sadder lot in life than that of the widow and family of the would all agree that the Houses of Parliament would compare favourably young professional man left unprovided for. He had no doubt that the with any representative body in the world, not only because it comprised appeals which reached the directors of the association wrung their hearts, great talent, not only hat it was an assembly of a representative character, and that were their resources many times what they are they would be all but for its generous appreciation of opponents, of which there was an example insufficient to reach the needs of the deserving applicants for help. He in the tribute paid by both Houses on the death of a great statesman a few looked back now nearly to forty years when, emerging from his articles, weeks ago. There was another point which among lawyers it was legitimate he, with many young friends, Jooked upon an uncertain future, and it had to mention, and that was that the legal element was particularly strong, as he been one of the pleasures of his life to meet in some corner of the country, hoped it always would be, in both Houses of Parliament. History recorded in some old town, or it might be in some provincial president coming that there was one occasion when a Parliament was tried without any lawyers, up year by year to join the Council of the Incorporated Lw Society, and to but the result of that experiment was well known, and he thought it would grasp again the hand of those old friends made some thirty years ago, and never be tried again. As lawyers they were indebted to the parliamentary to find that he had prospered. But there was a note of sadness—success labours of our legislators, for a part of their business would not exist if it had not been the lot of all one's friends. Some were poor and stricken, were not for the extreme ingenuity with which the statutes were enacted. and that which had been his experience he knew had been the If it were not for the puzzles which were set by our legislators a good deal experience of nearly all who had reached his years. To turn to the of the business of lawyers would not be ; therefore they were in a position object of this society, and the efforts which it made to reach those who to drink the toast. The House of Lords acted as a drag which was were in need : it was founded forty years ago by those whose motives and occasionally very useful, and there were people sufficiently old-fashioned whose labours entitled them to a just meed of applause at the hands of the to say "Thank God we have a House of Lords." The House of Lords was profession. It had always grown and prospered. In 1868, ten years after certainly strengthened, and its life was prolonged, by the accession of fresh it was founded, there were 1,927 golicitors who were members of the blood which it continually received from the learned professions, and from the association. In 1878 the number had grown to 2,489. In 1888 there were legal profession in particular. But for this he thought there would be a 3,198 members, and in 1898 there were 3,425 members. There were, how danger of the House of Lords stagnating; but it contained an immense ever, 16,000 solicitors upon the roll, and he should greatly like to see that amount of talent and it did an occasional signal service to the country. number extended. Then, in 1868 all the society was able to grant was Mr. T. Skewes-Cox, M.P., in returning thanks, said that the longer he £490. In 1878 that had grown to £2,445 ; in 1888 it had increased to was in the House of Commons the more he was impressed with the dignity £3,704, and last year the amount was £4,702. These figures, gratifying of the House of Lords and the absolute necessity of having a second as they were, were not too large. He was sure it would be the wish of chamber. With regard to the House of Commons, of which there were those present that he should tender a word of hearty thanks to their three members present, it consisted of 670 members, of whom 139 were country friends. With all their local burdens, and the many claims upon barristers, and, he regretted to say, only twenty-seven solicitors. This was them, they did most ungrudgingly and liberally support the association. far too few. If the House of Commons was to pass just, intelligent, and He should like, too-and there he knew he should have their sympathy easily construed laws there must be more solicitors as its members. entirely-to say how much they were indebted to their directors and oficers, Mr. H. MANISTY gave the toast, “ The Bench and the Bar.” He said this and those by whom the affairs of the association were carried on. Their was peculiarly appropriate, because as solicitors they knew more about the directors were among the busiest members of the profession, and they subject than those whose health he was proposing knew about it themselves. devoted to the work of this charity their time, their energy, their experi. Solicitors were the constant critics of the bench and the bar, and everyence in the most ungrudging and unselfish manner. The charity was thing they did was done in front of solicitors. He was sorry there was no administered by them as he believed no other body of men could administer member of the bench present; but that presented no difficulty, because the charity of their profession. Their hearts, he had no doubt, were often every member of the bench was a member of the bar, and continued a troubled that they could do no more, but he was sure that those he was member of the bar. It was a fortunate thing for the public and for addressing would join with him in a hearty expression of gratitude to solicitors and for the bar itself that this was so, because every member of them all for the kind and excellent work they were doing. He did not the bench knew from his own experience the difficulties which were felt expect that this year the usual level attained at this festival as regarded and had to be dealt with by both solicitors and barristers. It was not, as donations and subscriptions would be reached. Last year all ranks laid was the case in foreign countries, where a man commenced his career on the upon themselves heavy taxes and burdens, and this year he would not be bench, and knowing the difficulties, the occupants of the bench refrained surprised to find that the friends of the association were not able to from making observations such as one heard of in connection with other support it to the extent they had done in other years. But a great debt countries. The bench and bar would compare with any bench and any, of gratitude was due to those who had attended the festival to give the bar in the whole world. But they were present as members of the Solicitors' association their support. And here, again, he wished to say how much Benevolent Association, and he should like to say one word upon that point they were indebted to their country friends, many of whom had come with regard to the bar.' The Barristers' Benevolent Association was not s? with great inconvenience to themselves. And, amongst others, he old as this, and he was not sure that its annual income was as large, but was sure they would not think him invidious if he mentioned the they might take a lesson from the bar in individual kindness, individual benename of their dear old friend Mr. Howlett as being one of their volence, and individual liberality, in which respect solicitors could not com longest and best supporters. Even when he had been suffering pare with the bar. He had been brought up in the atmosphere of the law from ill-health he had always thought of the society, and it was a from his earliest years, and he knew of cases where barristers had indi: great pleasure to see that he had gained a measure of strength. He (the vidually given their money and time and everything that was required to Chairman) trusted that all whom his words reached would, as far as they assist members of their own profession who were in need. He knew of could, endeavour to induce tuore who did not already subscribe to the instances where they had given liberally and, outsiders might think, with association to become annual subscribers, giving something yearly, how almost too lavish a hand. Although the Barristers' Benevolent Association ever small an amount it might be. Because it was the steady, unfailing was not so old or so wealthy as was the "Solicitors' Benevolent Association, income which was derived from subscriptions upon which the directors more had been done by the bar possibly, until late years, for thos; in need felt that they could really rely which was the mainstay of the association. than by the solicitors' branch. He had' the greatest feeling of respect for It was the fashion to say that we live in a cold and selfish world, but this the liberality of the bar. He had said that every member of the bench was protests against that slander, and he for one declared that throughout the possibilities of the bench, and so overy member of the bar could respond all bis life he bad enjoyed the greatest help and kindness, often unsought for the bench. and unexpected, and he was sure his lot had been the lot of most of them. And that help and support was in their hearts, he was sure, to-night dinner to the judges at the Mansion House, there was no member of the

Mr. Reginald Brown, in returning thanks, regretted that, owing to the when they were thinking of the objects of the association. alone was it to those upon whom misfortune and sorrow might certainly one of the most enlightened and learned of the professions. Its

Not bench present. He considered the bar a noble and useful profession—it was fall that dicappointment came, but with each and all of them members possessed great privileges, the privilege of defending those who many bright hopes failed and many pleasing illusions were dispelled were in any way oppressed, the privilege of seeing that one's party rights and much which seemed of fair promise turned out an empty show. But there was one light which shone upon our path which would never fail us splendid profession in that it opened great possibilities of success to every

were adjusted in accordance with the laws of the country. It was also a purposes they were met to-night to support. Te might be when they the chance of positions of great success both socially and financially: At came to cease from their labours, and looked upon their past, that it the same time, although it was a profession meriting that encomium, it was would not be the victories they had won or any material success they had not all couleur de rose. The bar did not number, like the solicitors, 16,000

« PreviousContinue »