« PreviousContinue »
London and at Bushire in Persia and at Muscat, against the defendants, be ascertained by a court of summary jurisdiction or where the inspector who were underwriters of two policies of marine insurance to recover á is appointed by them) by the Board of Trade, and shall, in the total loss caused by a capture at sea of the goods insured. The policies absence of any agreement, be paid by the undertakers. Provided that were dated respectively the 29th of November and the 6th of December, where the report of an electric inspector, or the decision of the Board 1897. The first was described to be on four cases of cartridges valued at of Trade, shows that any consumer was guilty of any default or £215 per steamship Baluchistan, London to Bahrein and (or) other Persian negligence, such fees and expenses shall, op being ascertained as aboveGulf ports; and the second policy on one case of rifles and one case of mentioned, be paid by such consumer or consumers as the court or Board cartridges valued at £200 by the same vessel to Bunder Abbas and (or) of Trade, having regard to such report or decision, shall direct, and may other Persion Gulf ports. The bills of lading for the goods mentioned in be recovered summarily as a civil debt.
The electric inspector the first policy described the goods as shipped for "Babrein via Bushire, whose fees and expenses were the subject of inquiry was appointed by Muscat optional.” That of the second parcel described the goods simply the corporation at a salary of £250 a year. The items claimed as fees and as shipped for Bunder Abbas. Neither Bahrein nor Muscat were ports in reasonable expenses included the rent of an electric laboratory, the gas, Persian territory, but Bushire and Bunder Abbas were. The vessel sailed electricity, cleaning, coals, and insurance of the same, the wages of two from London in November, 1897, and on the 26th of January, when off Muscat, assistants, the depreciation in the value of instruments, furniture, fittings, was intercepted by The Lapwing purporting to acton behalf of the government &c., and the salary of the electric inspector, in addition to fees already of the Shah of Persia, and these goods were seized and confiscated, the received by the inspector from the respondents. The alderman disallowed alleged ground of the confiscation being that the goods were intended for all the items except the last. importation into Persian territory and that the importation of arms and The Court (DAY and RIDLEY, JJ.) dismissed the appeal. They said ammunition was forbidden by Persian law. The plaintiffs thereupon that the proviso to section 47 shewed that the words " fees and reasonable claimed from the underwriters and the action was subsequently brought. expe ses meant the fees and expenses which would be payable by a The learned judge, in dealing with the question of concealment, said the consumer in the event of a default by him; that was to say, the fees and evidence was to the effect that as long ago as July, 1881, the Persian expenses relating to the testing of meters, &c., on the consumer's premises. Government had issued a decree that no arms or ammunition should enter - COUNSEL, P. Rose Innes ; Roskill. SOLICITORS, The City Solicitor ; Ashurst, Persian territory without permission of that government, and that if such Morris, Crisp, sf Co. goods arrived at Bushire the fact was to be reported to the authorities at
[Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.) Teheran. A copy of the decree was put in evidence. That there was in fact a qualified prohibition against the importation of arms and ammunition, passed really with a view of imposing a heavy duty, was clear, but he thought on the evidence that the plaintiffs believed it to be a dead
Solicitors' Cases. letter, and that they had never heard of any attempt to enforce it or of any complaint by the Persian Government that it was being disregarded. Re WHITE, PENNELL v. FRANKLIN. C. A. 5th July. If the so-called probibition was effective for any purpose at all it was merely for the purpose of enabling the representative of the Shah at
SOLICITOR-EXECUTOR-WILL-POWER TO SOLICITOR-EXECUTOR TO
PROFESSIONAL CHARGES - INSOLVENT ESTATE-OREDITORS' ACTION. Bushire, who apparently farmed his office from the government to levy heavy and arbitrary duties on the goods imported. There was no real This was an appeal from a decision of Kekewich, J. (46 W. R. 247; prohibition at all ; nor did anyone engaged in the trade imagine--and 1898, 1 Ch. 297), that a solicitor-trustee who was empowered by a will to certainly the plaintiffs did not—that there was the least danger of inter- make professional charges was not entitled, on the estate being found. ference so long as the duties were forthcoming in answer to the demands | insolvent, to any profit costs of acting as solicitor to the estate as against of the government officials. Now, in these circumstances were the plain creditors. The testator who died in 1891 appointed Mr. Franklin, a. tiffs guilty of any omission such as would invalidate their insurance ? solicitor, with two other gentlemen trustees and executors of his will. By In his opinion they had acted honestly and conld not be held in fault. a clause therein Mr. Franklin was to be allowed all professional and He thought it doubtful if The Lapwing acted on the initiative of the other charges for time and trouble which as a solicitor he would have Persian Government at all, and that more probably it was at this time been entitled to make had he not been an executor. The testator's estate: suspected (probably wrongly) that the arms were destined for the Afghan was insolvent, and the will was proved by Mr. Franklin alone, the other istan frontier where the native tribes were giving trouble to the Indian two executors having disclaimed. An action being brought by creditors · Government. Whether that conjecture was right or wrong in his view of ) against Mr. Franklin as sole executor was defended by him in person, and the facts there was nothing in the knowledge of the plaintiffs which could he acted as solicitor for himself. A summons was then taken out by the : reasonably have affected the calculation of the risk and which they failed creditors for a declaration that the testator's estate being insufficient to to disclose to the defendants. As to the second point taken by the defen- pay his debts in full Mr. Franklin was not entitled to any profit costs by dants-viz., that the adventure was illegal because the import of arms reason of the declaration in the testator's will. Kekewich, J., following was contrary to the law of Persia, and therefore the policy in respect of it Re Thorley, Thorley v. Massam (39 W. R. 565 ; 1891, 2 Ch. 613), held that was void, the learned judge was of opinion that there was nothing in it.. the power to make professional charges given by the will was a legacy, The import of arms was not illegal, as the Persian law was administered and that the executor was under the circumstances not entitled to profit in practice and enjoined, and the export of arms from England to Persia costs. The executor appealed. was certainly not contrary to our law.-COUNSEL, Pickford, Q.C., and The Court (LINDLEY, M.R., CHITTY and Collins, L.JJ.) dismissed the Hollams ; Joseph Walton, Q.O. ; Carver, Q.C., and Scrutton; Cecil Chapman appeal. held a watching brief for Malcolm, Brunker, & Co. (Limited) who had LINDLEY, M.R.-I do not see how we can differ judicially from the also shipped arms by the same vessel as the plaintiffs and had insured decision of Kekewich, J. In this case the trustee and executor happens with the defendants. SOLICITORS, Hollams, Sons, Coward, & Hawksley; to be a solicitor and he is the only trustee and executor. It is impossible Rowcliffes, Rawle, & Co., for Hill, Dickinson, Dickinson, $ Hill, Liverpool ; to get over the previous decisions and the principle on which they are Baker f Nairne.
based. The estate is insolvent, and Kekewich, J., has decided that Mr. [Reported by ERSKINE Reid, Barrister-at-Law.]
Franklin is not entitled to receive any profit costs out of the estate in
competition with the creditors. It is impossible to differ from the CRAWFORD V. THE CITY OF LONDON ELECTRIC LIGHTING CO.
declaration which he has made. It is hard upon the solicitor, but that: Div. Court. 1st July.
cannot be helped.
CHITTY, L.J.-I am of the same opinion. No one can claim the bounty ELECTRIC LIGHTING - INSPECTOR — Fees AND REASONABLE EXPENSES
of a testator until his creditors have been paid. This rule applies not only ELECTRIC LIGHTING Orders CONFIRMATION (No. 15) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 to a solicitor-trustee but equally to a trustee who is an accountant, a VICT. C. CCXXXIX.), s. 47.
surveyor, or an architect. This was an appeal from the decision of an alderman of the City of COLLINS, L.J., concurred.-Counsel, Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and J. G. London, sitting as a court of summary jurisdiction, upon an application Wood; Farwell, Q.C., and Chas. Church. SOLICITORS, S. Franklin ; Maitmade by the appellant, as representing the Corporation of the City of lands, Peckham, & Co. London, under section 47 of the Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation
[Reported by J. I. STIRLING Barrister-at-Law.] (No. 15) Act, 1890, to ascertain the amount of fees and reasonable expenses of an electric inspector, with which the appellant sought to charge the Re DIXON, TOUSEY V. SHEFFIELD. Byrne, J. 17th June and 1st respondents, who were the undertakers within the meaning of the Act.
July. Section 35 of the Act referred to provided for the appointment of electric inspectors by the local authority, who were in this case the Corporation of
PRACTICE—Costs - COUNTRY SOLICITOR-ATTENDANCE IN LONDON AT HBARthe City of London. The duties of an electric inspector were to be : (a)
ING-LONDON AGENT NOT EMPLOYED. The inspection and testing, periodically and in special cases, of the under Summons. This was an application to review taxation as between takers' electric lines and works, and the supply of energy given by thera; party and party in respect of allowances by the district registrar at (6) the certifying and examination of meters; and (c) such other duties in Liverpool of attendances of Liverpool solicitors in London on the hearing relation to the undertaking as might be required of him under the of an originating summons, all the evidence having been by affidavit. provisions of the order, or of any regulations under the order. It was The originating summons bad been taken out in the Liverpool District also provided that the local authority might from time to time prescribe Registry by persons entitled to one-fourth of the estate of John Dixon the fees to be taken by an inspector. Section 36 provided that the local (deceased) under the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, asking for the removal authority might pay to an inspector such remuneration as from time to of the trustees of the estate, who were defendants, on the ground of mistime they might determine, and such remuneration might be in addition to conduct, and was, in fact, a hostile action. It came on for hearing before or in substitution for any fees directed to be paid to an electric inspector Byrne, J., to whom the Chancery matters of the Manchester and Liverpool in respect of his duties under the order, or any regulations of the Board of District Registry are specially assigned, on the 18th of February last Trade made in pursuance of the order. Section 47 is as follows : "Save as and again on the 26th of February, and reserved judgment was delivered otherwise provided by this order, or by regulations under this order, all on the 26th of March, when the summons was dismissed with costs. fees and reasonable expenses of an electric inspector shall, unless agreed, During these proceedings Messrs. Tyrer & Co., of Liverpool, as agents
for Messrs. Donald & Co., of Carlisle, and Messrs. Norris & Sons, of Liverpool, acted as the solicitors for one or other of the defendants, and conducted the case themselves without employing a London agent,
NEW ORDERS, &c. coming up to London to attend the hearing. Upon taxation of costs
RULES PUBLICATION ACT, 1893. before the district registrar at Liverpool Messrs. Tyrer & Co. eent in their bill of costs, containing the following items: “161. Feb. 18-Attending
RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT. court when case part heard and adjourned to 26th inst., £6 68. ; 162. Feb. The following draft Rules are published pursuant to the above18—Paid railway fare and expenses, £5 58.; 164. Feb. 26-Attending mentioned Act :adjourned hearing, £6 63. ; 165. Feb. 26-Paid railway fare and expenses, £5 58." Messrs. Norris & Sons sent in a bill containing similar items.
ORDER XIX. Rule 28. These items were allowed by the registrar. The plaintiff objected to the 1. The particulars prescribed in Order XIX., Rule 28, shall inwhole of items 162 and 165, and to so much of items 161 and 164 as clude the following :exceeded the amount that would have been allowed had the solicitors
(0.) What sound signals (if any) and when were given. instructed London agents to make the attendances to which these item3 related, and they now asked that it might be referred back to the
(p.) What sound signals (if any) and when were heard from the
other vessel. registrar to vary bis certificate accordingly. They contended that all solicitors who practised in the High Court must be placed on the game
ORDER XXI. Rule 18, footing ; one could not be allowed more than another merely because he
2. All the words after “at liberty to do so" in Order XXI., Rule resided farther away from the court; and that in any event there was no need for the solicitors in this case to attend the hearing, as all the 18, are bereby repealed, and the following words shall stand in lieu evidence was by affidavit.
thereof:BYRNE, J.-In my opinion, so far as the Chancery Division is concerned,
“And shall not in any event be liable to pay the costs of the other the rules and practice in respect of the taxation of party and party costs
side unless the Judge shall be of opinion that there was no are the same in the London taxing-masters' offices and in the offices of
reasonable ground for opposing the will.” the district registrars of Liverpool and Manchester; and I consider that
ORDER LIV. Rule 1, A. such rules and practice apply in respect of cases heard in London exactly as if proceedings had been initiated in any other district registry than
3. An application for the appointment of a new Arbitrator under those of Liverpool and Manchester and had been taxed in London. In paragraph 7 of the second schedule of " The Workmer's Compensation other words, the district registrars in Liverpool and Manchester ought to Act, 1897,” shall be made by summons. act upon the same principles as the London taxing-masters act in taxing
ORDER LVIII. Rule 20. costs where the proceedings have been commenced in district registries in other parts of the country. I have given the matter careful consideration Appeals under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. 60 and 61 Vict. C. and have made inquiry of two of the London taxing-masters. In the
37, Sched. 2, par. 4. result I am eatisfied that there is no such hard-and-fast rule as that
4. The following provisions shall apply to appeals to the Court of suggested by the applicant's counsel-namely, that in no case where all Appeal from decisions of judges of the county courts on questions of the evidence is taken by affidavit ought the costs of the attendance of the law under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 :country solicitor to be allowed. On the contrary, I believe it to be in accordance with the existing practice to allow such costs in certain rare
(a.) Every such appeal shall be by notice of motion in accordance and exceptional cases, in the exercise of the discretion of the taxing
with Order LIX., Rule 10; and such notice of motion sball officer. This discretion ought to be, and is, exercised with the utmost
be served and the appeal set down under Order LVIII., Rule 8, care and caution. One of the London taxing-masters informs me that he
within the time limited by Order LIX., Rule 12. does not think he has allowed such costs on a party and party taxation in (6.) It shall be the duty of the party appealing to apply to the more than about half-a-dozen instances. I can well understand that cases judge of the county court for a signed copy of the note made do occur where personal fraud or misconduct has been charged and has by him of any question of law raised before bim, and of the failed, where all the preliminary proceedings have been taken in the district facts in evidence in relation thereto, and of his decision registry, and where all the facts are known in the offices of the country thereon, and of his decision on the question or watter solicitor that the taxing officer may fairly consider the presence in London submitted to him, and to furnish such copy for the use of the country solicitor to be reasonably necessary for the conduct of the
of the Court of Appeal; and such copy shall be used defendant's case. At the same time, it affords no reason at all for
and received at the hearing of the appeal. If such exercising the discretion that no London agent has been employed. If the charges for attendance of the country solicitor are allowed in the
notes are not produced the Court of Appeal shall have rare and exceptional cases referred to, it is not in accordance with the
power to hear and determine the appeal upon any other practice, as I understand it, to allow charges also for the attendance of
evidence or statement of what occurred before the judge of the London solicitor. I have confined my remarks to cases arising in the the county court which the Court of Appeal may deem Chancery Division, and I do not consider that I am departing from the sufficient. general rule laid down in the case of The Soto (41 W. R. 279 ; 1893, P. 73). (c.) Order LIX., Rules 14 and 16, shall apply to any such appeal, My view is that upon a party and party taxation the costs of an unsuc with the substitution of the Court of Appeal for the High cessful litigant are not to be increased simply by reason of the opponent Court. client, or his local solicitor in Liverpool or Manchester, electing
(a.) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the rules for the time that such solicitor should attend in London instead of employing being in force with respect to appeals from the High Court to a London agent; that no different rule or practice ought to pre the Court of Appeal shall, so far as practicable, apply to and vail upon taxation before a Liverpool or Manchester district registrar than that prevailing upon taxation in London of the costs arising in any
govern appeals under the said Act to the Court of Appeal. other of the numerous district registries throughout the country, and that
5. These Rules may be cited as the Rules of the Supreme Court, the discretion of the taxing officer ought always to be exercised in such a
in such a July, 1898, or separately, according to their respective headings, 'matter (as I bave no reason to doubt it is) with very great care and only in with reference to the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, and they exceptional cases. The present case was a very exceptional one, and the shall come into operation on the 24th day of October, 1898. discretion of the taxing officer having been exercised with care, and after Copies may be obtained on application at the Lord Chancellor's consultation with a most experienced London taxing-master, I am not Office, House of Lords. prepared to interfere with such discretion or to go into the question of the amount of the allowances complained of. I may add that the items 173 and 174 in Appendix N. to the R. S. C. 1883 (Annual Practice, vol. 2,
TRANSFER OF ACTIONS. p. 202), cited by the respondent's counsel, have no bearing upon the pre
ORDER OF COURT. sent case, inasmuch as they do not apply to cases heard in London or Middlesex. Summons dismissed.-COUNSEL, 4. à B. Terrell ; Rotch;
Thursday, the 30th day of June, 1898. Preston. SOLICITORS, J. F. Karrison of Burton, Liverpool; Tyrer, Kenion, Whereas, the Honourable Mr. Justice Bigham has at my request conTyrer, & Simpson, Liverpool, for Donald, Ostell, f. Lighifoot, Carlisle; Norris sented to sit and act as an additional Judge of the Obaucery Division Sons, Liverpool.
from the 6th day of July, 1898, up to the 20th day of July, 1898, both [Reported by N. TEBBUTT, Barrister-at-Law.]
inclusive. And, Whereas, it is expedient that the following Causes aud Matters assigned to Mr. Justice North, Dr. Justice Stirling, Mr. Justice Kekewich, Mr. Justice Romer, and Mr. Justice Byrne, should for the purpose only of Hearing or of Trial be beard or tried before such
additional judge ; Now I, the Right Honourable Hardinge Stanley, Earl On the 1st inst. the Royal Assent was given to a number of public and of Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain (with the consent of private Bills, including the Finance Bill, the Reserve Forces Bill, Public the Lorl Chief Justice of Evgland), do hereby Order that the several Record Office Bill, Suffragan Bishops Bill, and East India Loan Bill. Causes and Matters set forth in the Schedules hereto, be accordingly The Church Gazetle is responsible for the following: One of the learned Justice Kekewich, Mr. Justice Romer, and Mr. Justice Byrne to Mr.
transferred from the said Mr. Justice Nortb, Mr. Justice Stirling, Mr. judges has frequently the misfortune of having his judgments ravereed by Justice Bigham (as such additional Judge of the Chancery Division) for ihe superior court. But one after con bis little daughter came rushing in the purpose only of Hearing or of Trial, and he marked in the Cause in a most excited frame of mind. “Papa,” she said, “ may we have cake Books accordingly. And I do alto Order that such of the said Causes and for tea? One of your judgments bas been upheld by the Court of Matters as remain undisposed of at the close of such Sitting be re-transAppeal.”
ferred (without further Order) to the said Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice
Stirling, Mr. Justice Kekewich, Mr. Justice Romer, and Mr. Justice defendants in Scotland, as compared with those possessed and exercised • Byrne. And this Order is to be drawn up by the Registrar and set up in by the Scotch courts to sue defendants resident in England or Ireland. the several Offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. This matter was the subject of a report of the Council in the year 1885, FIRST SCHEDULE.
who reported in favour of an amendment of ord. 11, r. 1 (e). The From Mr. Justice NORTH.
Scotch courts make no distinction as to their jurisdiction between
residents in England and foreigners. An Englishman or a foreigner may 1897: Wemyss v Knollys 1896 W 1,109 Dec 16
become subject to the Scotch jurisdiction -(1) By residence in Scotland In re Elliott Milnes v Hare 1897 E 366 Dec 17
for forty consecutive days prior to the action ; (2) by prorogation, i.e., Kemp v Lowenfeld 1897 K 700 Dec 29
where he waives objection; (3) by possession of real estate in Scotland; 1898.
(4) by the arrestment (or attachment) of personal property there ; (5) by Paukhurst v Reed 1897 P 2,041 Jan 4
convention ; and (6) by personal citation in Scotland when the cause of The Danlop Pneumatic Tyre Co, id v Wedge Pneumatic Tyre Co 1897 action, whether contract or debit, arose there. If there be jurisdiction D 1,462 Jan 4
under any of these heads, the question of service of process arises, and by Bolton v Hall 1897 B 4,277 Jan 6
the Act 45 & 46 Vict. c. 77, s. 3, Scotch writs may be served by sending Smith v Sbarp 1897 S 4,068 Jan 10
to the known residence or place of business of the defendant, or to the Cox v Manuelle 1897 0892 Jan 10
last known address (if it continues to be his legal domicil), or to the Urban District Council of Chiswick v Arnold (J Whitaker 3rd Party) Office of the Keeper of Edictal Citations, the process enclosed in a 1897 C1,736 Jan 13
registered letter by post containing the copy summons, and Maison Helbronner, id v Daveen 1897 M 1,303 Jan 27
such posting constitutes a legal and valid citation, unless the Curre v Chepst Water Co 1897 C 785 Feb 8
defendant proves that it was not left at the place to which
it was addressed. The regulations of the Scotch courts, with SECOND SCHEDULE.
reference to such postal service on persous out of the jurisdiction, proFrom Mr. Justice STIRLING.
vide as follows -viz. : (1) That when a person has no dwelling-place in 1897.
Scotland, he may be cited edictally-i.e., by lodging a copy at the keeper Peters y Owen 1897 P 1,001 Nov 11
of the records of the Court of Session, and giving reasonable notice to his Owen v Peters 1897 0 355 May 21
known agent in Scotland, or to himself at his residence or place of busiWilliams v London & North-Western Ry Co 1897 W 2,398 Nov 12 ness in England or Ireland. (2) That a registered post letter addressed Barker v Oakden 1896 B 1,941 Nov 18
to the defender's residence or place of business shall be deemed reasonTerry v Brickwell 1897 T 334 Nov 25
able notice. The Scotch courts have also a special mode of procedure by English & American Machinery Co, ld v Hirshowitz 1897 E 621 Dec way of summary diligence on bills of exchange (see " Juridical Styles," 10
5th ed., vol. ii., p. 17), by which the holder of a bill of exchange may In re W Owen's Patent, No 12,368 of 1896 Dec 18
cause it to be presented by a notary at the place when payable, and a Doolette v The Coolgardie Mint & Iron King Gold Mines, ld 1896 D protest obtained within a reasonable time afterwards. Upon a protest 2,069 Dec 20
duly taken and recorded within six months in the books of session, or of 1898.
an inferior court, summary diligence may proceed for the sum contained Simms v Solomons 1897 83 497 Jan 6
in the bill or note with interest. Under the Judgments Extension Act Russell v Young 1897 R 1,810 Jan 13
this summary diligence is enforceable as a judgment in England. The THIRD SCHEDULE.
fourth head of jurisdiction of the Scotch courts--viz., arrest of property From Mr. Justice KEREWICH.
ad fundandam jurisdictionem, is unknown in England. In Scotland the 1898.
ownership of any property, however small, is sufficient. If an EnglishSey v Griffith 1889 S 1,807 restored June 15
man or Irishman have left an umbrella in a hotel, jurisdiction would arise. Remus & Temler v H Stevenson & Sons 1896 R1,760 Oct 11
In a recent case a commercial traveller, who had been discharged by an The Castner Kellner Alkali Co ld v Commercial Development Corpn la English firm, had in his possession, contrary to the wish of his late 1897 C 4,000 April 18
masters, some valuable samples. With these he went to Scotland and The Guthrie Hall Co ld vamage 1898 G 700 April 25
sought to found on them an arrestment, so as to sue his masters in ScotDewrance v Smith & Co 1897 D 1,614 May 7
land. The Court of First Instance upheld this exercise of jurisdiction, FOURTH SCHEDULE.
and it was only on appeal that the possession of defendant's property,
taken by the defendant himself to Scotland, was held not to come within From Mr. Justice ROMER.
the Scotch rule and the order reversed. On the other hand, the English 1898. Moon v Waterlow Bros & Layton ld 1897 M 2,069 Feb 18
courts are limited by ord. 11, ir. 1 and 2, to a peculiarly small number of
actions, and have less jurisdiction to authorize the service of process in Marsh v Moody 1897 M 3,539 Feb 21
Scotland than in any other part of the world. Under sub-section (e) they Rogers v Hale 1897 R_1,797 Feb 28
have power, where the action is founded on a breach of contract which Bryant v Glover 1897 B 1,772 March 3
ought to be performed in England, to authorize service of process in any Hayward v Tolhurst 1897 H 4,117 March 3
part of the world, except on defendants domiciled or ordinarily resident McCulloch v Chantrey 1897 M 1,744 March 9
in Scotland or Ireland. Even in any of the limited cases, to which rule 1 Pyke v Grafton Galleries ld 1897 P 1,658 March 10
applies, the courts are (as regards Scotland and Ireland) still further Dewrance & Co v Fletcher Bros 1897 D 1,067 March 16
restricted, being bound by rule 2 to have regard to the comparative cost Hadley v Corpo on of Worcester 1897 3,026 March 16
and convenience of proceeding in England or in the local courts of Brooke v Higgs 1897 B 1,414 March 16
Scotland. How strictly the English courts construe this rule and how FIFTH SCHEDULE.
entirely differently from the arrestment ad fundandam jurisdictionem of the From Mr. Justice BYRNE.
Scotch courts as shewn by the cases of Jones v. The Scottish Accident Insur1897.
ance Co. (17 Q. B. D. 421) and Watkins v. Scottish Imperial Insurancz Co. (23 In re Chard Chard v Chard 1897 0 565 Aug 4
Q. B.D. 285) where it was held that companies registered in Scotland but Helios Elektricitats Actien Gesellschaft v Braulik 1897 H 1,345 carrying on business and having a chief office and many agencies in Aug 12
England, could not be served with process from the English courts, but Ellis v Churley 1897 E 64 Sept 10
that the claimant must sue in the Scotch courts, although the contract Priestley v Oxley 1897 P 752 Oct 4
was made in England. It will be seen from these decisions that an English Shurey v Kipnis & Co 1897 S 1,063 Oct 26
trading firm have only to register themselves as a limited company in Cheasley v Cheston 1897 0 1,152 Oct 27
Scotland or Ireland to exclude the jurisdiction of the English courts, and Holford v Blaiberg 1897 H 2,983 Oct 28
thereby put creditors to the great inconvenience of suing them in the Allen v Pyatt & Co 1897 A 522 Oct 30
Scotch or Irish courts. _ They may do this although their principal business Simmance v W Sugg & Co ld 1897 S 760 Aug 12
may be carried on in England, and little or no business may be carried on Huntly-Gordon v Hall 1896 H 2,964 Nov 1
in Scotland or Ireland, notwithstanding that the registered office is HalsbURY, 0.
there. The committee have been informed of a case in which this has RUSSELL or Kn., L.C.J. actually been done, and of several actions in the English courts against the
company 0 registered having been stayed by the High Court in pursuance of the above decisions, although the business was mainly
carried on in London. In some trades, such as the corn trade, in which LEGAL PROCEDURE.
Scotch dealers make contracts in England, the English traders have found
it necessary to protect themselves against this state of the law by inserting The following is the further report to the Council of the Special a clause in their contracts that any claim should be within the jurisCommittee on this subject, which was adopted by the Council on the 10th diction of the English courts, and that service of a writ might be effected of June.
by leaving a copy at the office of the trade association, and postiog it in a The committee in their recent report, adopted by the Council on the registered letter to the defendant in Scotland. The validity of this 21st of January 1898, dealt with the recommendations of the Bar Council method was disputed in Montgomery v. Leibenthal (46 W. R. 292), but was as to the conduct of civil business in the Queen's Bench Division. They held to be good by the Court of Appeal, though in the previous case of The now proceed to report on the other matters which have been referred to British Wagon Co. v. Gray (44 W. R 113 ; 1896, 1 Q. B. 35) the court held them by the Council.
itself precluded by the rules from giving leave to serve a writ in Scotland Service of Process in English and Sco.ch Courts. The committee have where the defendant, resident in Scotland, bad agreed only to submit to considered the letter of a member, referred to them on the 18th of the jurisdiction of the English court. The rules of November, 1893, inFel ruary, 1898, by resolution of the Council, with regard to the difference troduced amendments in order 11, which in some slight degree tended to between the powers rested in the English and Irish Courts for suing obviate the anomaly and injustice to English suitors. These amende
ments, however, when about to be laid on the table of the Houses but they are of opinion that these registers and any others now kept of Parliament were objected to by some Scotch members, and, in at the Central Office might be transferred to the Land Registry Office. consequence, were annulled by the urgent order of the 10th of January, The committee are of opinion that not merely, alphabetical, but also 1894, and apparently without inquiry whether the proposed order gave lexicographical indexes should be kept of all registers. . It appears from the English courts a jurisdiction over Scotchmen even approaching to the the printed form of certificate of search in use under section 2 of the Conjurisdiction exercised by the Scotch courts over Englishmen. Your com veyancing Act, 1882, that the registers in the Central Office comprise : (1) mittee are of opinion that the powers of arrestment ad fundandam juris- Judgment revivals, decrees, orders, and rules; (2) lis pendens ; (3) judgment dictionem, and also of summary diligence upon bills of exchange, are at the suit of the Crown, statutes, recognizances, Crown bonds, inquisitions, capable of abuse to the prejudice of persons resident in England. The and acceptances of office; (4) executions; and (5) annuities and rent-charges. committee are also of opinion that the jurisdiction exercised by the courts The registers already at the Land Registry comprise : (1) Writs and of the two countries should be carefully considered together and assimi- orders ; (2) deeds of arrangement; and (3) land charges. The committee lated, and that the facts above referred to should be drawn to the atten- approve of the proposed enactment that a judgment shall not operate as a tion of the Rule Committee, and that a representation'should also be made charge on land, although registered. And they go further, and are of to the proper authorities regulating the procedure of the Scotch courts, opinion that a purchaser should not be affected even by an execution, notwith a view to bringing about reasonable equality between the powers withstanding registration, unless possession of the land is taken before the respectively possessed by Englishmen having claims on persons in Scot- purchaser completes his purchase. This was the principle of the Acts of land, and Scotchmen having claims on persons in England and Ireland. 1864 and 1865, which enacted that no judgment should affect purchasers
Procedure in Actions on Bills of Exchange. The committee have had unless the land is delivered in execution. The committee are of opinion under their consideration the resolution passed at the annual provincial that a clause should be introduced in the Bill providing that all contracts meeting at Sheffield, in October, 1897, in favour of the restoration of the or agreements entered into with corporations in relation to land, which by procedure under the Summary Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act, private Improvement Acts are declared to be binding on all subsequent 1855. The committee are of opinion that the process under the Summary owners and to be subject to registration with the town clerk, shall Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act, 1855, was advantageous, and that also be registered in the Central Office. In the year 1896 the it has been unduly restricted under order 14. They suggest that in Council became aware that clauses providing for local registration actions on bills of exchange and on certain written documents, and in had been inserted in Improvement Bills. The Sussex Law Society other special cases to be prescribed, the plaintiff should be entitled to opposed the clauses before a committee of the House of Commons summary judgment unless the defendant obtains leave to defend. In the when included in a Brighton Improvement Bill, but the comalternative, they suggest a rule to be made under order 14 by which mittee adhered to their precedent, and the clauses were passsed. Similar the plaintiff in an action on a bill of exchange should be entitled clauses have been introduced into Improvement Bills for Leamington, immediately after appearance to issue and serve a summons under Croydon, and other towns. The effect of this legislation creating a order 14, on the return of which, without other evidence in support number of local registers of incumbrances is to undo the provisions of the than production of the bill, he should be entitled to summary Lord Chancellor's Bill for concentrating the registration of incumbrances judgment unless the defendant shall be then prepared with an affidavit on land in one central office easily available to purchasers, to whom the shewing substantial grounds of defence.
existence of registers established by local Acts might be unknown. The Judgments in Default of Appearance in Ejectment Actions. The committee committee refer to the Lord Chancellor's letter of the 16th of June, 1896, have considered the question referred to them by the Council on the 10th concurring iu this view. of December, 1897, whether costs should be allowed on signing judgment Setting Down Chancery Motions in a List.–The committee have taken into in default of appearance in ejectment actions. In the opinion of the consideration the motion unanimously passed at the special general committee such actions are of a special nature by reason of the fact that meeting of the society on the 29th of April, 1898, to the effect that the tenants and others who have no real interest in the dispute can be made interests of suitors and the due administration of justice require that defendants, and the present practice not to allow costs appears to work motions in the Chancery Division should be set down in a list, and be substantial justice.
taken in the order in which they appear in such list, no precedence being Service of Probate Citations. The committee have also considered this given to the leaders of the bar. This resolution is a repetition of resoluquestion, and after communicating with the senior registrar of the tions passed on several occasions in which the Council have concurred. Probate Division, have come to the opinion that a solicitor should be The committee recommend that the subject should again be brought to allowed to accept service of probate citations, not being mandatory the notice of the Lord Chancellor, with a request that he will give it his citations, and give an undertaking to appear as he can now do as regards consideration, inasmuch as the uncertainty when a motion will be made writs of summons in the Chancery and Queen's Bench Divisions. The under the present practice involves serious inconvenience to the public committee recommend that a communication should be made to the and the profession. President of the Probate Division on the subject.
Land Charges (H.L.) Bill, 1898.- This Bill, which has been introduced by the Lord Chancellor, proposes to substitute charging orders for writs of elegit as the mode of enforcing judgments against land, and that such
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. orders shall have the like effect as a mortgage deed executed by the
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. debtor upon which the money is due, and with an unconditional power of immediate sale. The last-mentioned provisions are new and may be
INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION. of doubtful expediency. The similar Bill introduced in 1896 did not contain them. It seems better that, as suggested below, a plaintiff
The following candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were seeking a sale should apply to the court. The Council have on previous successful at the Intermediate Examination held on the 15th of June, occasions approved of the abolition of writs of elegit. But they considered
1898. that the substituted charging order should issue as a matter of course on Adams, Stanley Alfred
Clarkson, Arthur George production of the judgment aud a certificate of non-satisfaction, and Alcock, Arthur Frank, B.A. (Camb.) Cole, Clement that the ends of justice might frequently be defeated unless express power Ames, Eustace Bernard
Cooke, George Edward Herbert, be given to the court, judge, or master in chambers to grant an order ex Barker, Leonard Edward Crossman B.A. (Camb.) parte. In this respect attention is called to the existing rule that where Barrington, Walter Bernard Louis Cooper, Arthur Edgar service of a summons is necessary after judgment, such service has to be Barton, Walter John, B.A. (Camb.) Cooper-King, Wallace made personally on the judgment debtor, and that service on his solicitor Batters, James Werge Moncrief Hozier is not sufficient. It follows that a debtor by eluding service might delay Bird, Ernest Edward
Cotching, Thomas the proposed form of execution, which is not now possible under the Bishop, Tom Bennett
Crompton, Percival Mason practice as to writs of elegit. The Bill proposes that the charging order Blomefield, Nigel Napier
Cross, William Arthur may extend to any interest of the debtor in land. At present a
Board, William John
Cushman, Frederick William Adcock judgment operates as against the debtor as a charge from the date of Borradaile, Harry
Outler, Charles Richard judgment, but the interests in land extendible under an elegit appear to Boyes, Frederick Charles
Dampney, George William include only legal estates in possession, and an entire equitable fee, a Bray, Edward Hugh, B.A. (Camb.) Davies, Evan Edward legal fee subject to a term of years, an equitable mortgage, and simple Bright, Geoffrey Lindop
Davies, Morgan trust estates; and to exclude a remainder, a partial equitable interest, an Brown, Charles Anthony, B.A. De Krevett, Edgar Standish Louis equity of redemption, and land already extended; while it is doubtful (Camb )
Knevett whether trusts for terms of years are included or excluded. The com- Bryan, Guy Wyndham
De Saram, Leslie William Frederick mittee are of opinion that the court should be empowered on summons in Brydone, Reginald Marr, B.A. Devenish, Henry Noel, B.A. (Cimb.) the action to make any order, ex parte, or otherwise, to enforce possession, (Oxon.)
Dimond, Charles Frederick Wheen avoiding the necessity for a fresh action to recover possession, and alsó Bunting, Ernest William
Easterbrook, Samuel Herbert that it should be competent to the court on summons to make any order Burgess, Henry George
Eastwood, Robert for sale, receiver, injunction, or inquiry which may seem just. An express Burnett, Richard Compton Ellis, Hiram enactment seems necessary, as doubt has been expressed whether order Burton, Frederick Percy
Ellis, John 51 (1) applies to the sale of lands taken in execution, inasmuch as it refers Butterworth, Raymond
Ellison, Sidney Frederick only to any cause or matter relating to real estate ; and these words may Campion, Ivon Hamilton, B.A: Elwell, Edward Charles be held not to include the realization of an execution by means of a sale (Camb )
Fordham, Alfred of land. It also seems desirable to provide specially for the disposal of Carr-Ellison, Herbert George Carr, Fortescue, Alexander John such matters in chambers. The Bill also provides for the transfer to the B.A. (Camb.)
Fortescue, Edward Claude Land Registry Office of the business of the judgments registry in the Carter, Ernest Shaen
Fraser, Hugh Central Office. The committee are not clear whether the expression Childs, Borlase Elward Wyndham Gambrill, John William "business conducted in the Registry of Judgments Department to the Clark, Harold George
Garrod, Horace Charles Central Office" includes the lis pendens register and the annuity register, Clarke, Eric
Glenister, Louis Oliver
Gould, Ralph Colin
Duder, Harney Steevens
Morgan, Charles Rowland
Duignan, Carl, B.A. (Oxon.) Morgan, Ernest Edgar
Mullen, Robert Gordon
Munro, William Hector
Mutter, Alick Cavell
Newbold, John Corden, B.A. (Camb.)
Norris, William Howe, Samuel Walter
Fisher, William Rowland, B.A Nussey, Cecil Antony, B.A. (Oxon.) Howse, Geoffrey Gatliff Richards, Henry Vivian, B.A. (Camb.)
O'Bryen-Taylor, Arthur Hotham Howee, Thomas Frederick, B.A. (Camb.)
FitzRoy, Charles Edward
Oppenheim, Frederic Sigismund, (Camb.) Richmond, Laurence Dickson
Foster, Charles Bertram, B.A. B.A. (Oxon.) Hughes, George Lewis Hollings- Robbins, Harold Northway, B.A. (Oxon.)
Ormiston, James Percival Donald worth (Oxon.) French, Frank
Ross Hunton, Cecil James Woodforde Roberts, Ernest Edward
Fry, Herbert Gerald
Oxley, William l'Anson, Leonard Percy Rooth, John Holmes
Furneaux, Claude Henry
Parker, John Cairns
Gale, Albert Curwen Maclaine Parry, Hubert, B.A. (Camb.)
Gamble, John Findlater Corscaden Pearson, Edgar Crosfield, B.A. Jones, Alfred Bruce Llewellyn Saunders, Thomas
Gepp, Henry Hamilton
(Oxon.) Jones, George Harrison Eaten Scott, Austin Andrew
Gibson, William Waymouth, B.A. Petch, Joseph
Piper, Arthur Drury
Player, Gilbert, B.A. (Camb.)
Pocock, Ernest William
Poole, Frank Hall
Poole, Frederick William
Pope, William Rushton
Price, George Lewis
Grinstead, Alfred James
Price, Gwilym Rhys
Pridham, John Walter
Rawlins, Frederick Percy Finch land, B.A. (Oxon.) B.A. (Oxon.) Hallowes, Charles Arthur
Mortlock Meek, Litchfield Thomas Cambage Tarr, Edward Sidney Anstey
Hamnett, Joseph Arthur
Thompson, Joseph Indermaur Hampson, Walter Ashworth Richardson, Albion Henry Herbert Moffrey, Ernest Charles Townend, Thomas Morgan
Harper, Henry Huband
Richardson, Joseph Ashfield
Rigg, Reginald Shaw
Harrison, Charles Newton Maberly Rising, Arthur Preston, B.A.
Heathcote, George Robert
Roberts, George Adam Villeneuve
Hendy, Ernest William, B.A. Roberts, John
Roberts, William Lionel Lloyd Newsham, David Weddelí, Arthur Harold Manners Higgs, Joseph Thomas
Robinson, Bertram Langhorne Newton, Archibald White, Ernest Hyam
Hilbery, Leonard William
Robson, John William Nicholson, Robert Leonard St. Clare Williams, William Arthur Gordon Hills, Charles Robe, B.A. (Oxon.)
Roney, Julian Nussey, George Leathley, B.A. Wilson, Eric
Hind, Oliver Watt:, LL.B. (Camb.) Salisbury, John James (Camb.) Winnett, Howard
Sampson, William Charles Osborne Orwin, Thomas Parker Wolf, Percy
Samuel, Arthur Reginald Morgan Page, Raymond Charles Wood, George Appleton
Sanders, Edgar Christian
Horner, John Richard
Hotson, John Herbert, B.A. Shackleford, Robert Stanley
Shacklock, Henry Stephen
Sharp, Alfred Percy
Howells, Alfred Thomas
Sharpe, Alan Frederic The following candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were
Howson, William Henry
Shaw, Alfred successful at the Final Examination held on the 13th and 14th June, Hughes, John Henry Glynne Sich, Charles Octavius 1898.
Humm, Henry Josiah
Smith, Edwin Ernest
Smith, Francis Orton, B.A. (Lond.) Airy, Bernard John, B.A. (Camb.) Buckley, Gilbert
Johnstone, James, B.A. (Oxon.)
Smith, James Robert Aldrich-Blake, Robert Morison, Butcher, Douglas Harry
Jolly, Henry Stewart
Snagg, Bertram Cecil Keith
Jones, Jobn Colenso
Somers, John Percy, B.A. (Camb.) Allen, Frederick, B.A. (Lond.) Carr, David Whiston
Kemlo, Henry Thomas Stephen
Stan bury-Eardley, Ernest Justice, Ambrose, Sydney Cole, B.A., Chapman, George William
Kenward, Frederick Charles
Kidgell, John Henry Henshaw Stevens, Charles Arragon
King, John Charles
Sturton, Douglas Phipps, B.A Archer, Charles Douglas Ward Clegg, Henry Edward
Lambe, Richard Frederic
(Oxon.) Armitage, Clarendon James Clelland, Alfred James
Latham, Arderne Mere, B.A. (Oxon.) Surtees, William
Lawry, Samuel James, B.A. (Oxon.) Sutton, George
Leach, Samuel Chetwynd, B.A. Sworder, Neville Robert, B.A., LL.B. Bailey, Harold George Charles (Camb.)
(Camb.) Barber, Frederic Viccars Colley, Reginald Edward Wellesley
Lewis, Arthur Glenton
Tanner, Charles Peile, B.A. (Camb.) Bath, Robert Collins, Bernard Augustus
Lewis, Edgar Percy, B.A. (Lond.) Tanner, Philip. Frank Beardsley, William Frederick Bent Colvile, Augustus Gilbert, LL.B.
Lomax, John Knight
Taylor, Frederick George Bellingham, George Edward Hor. (Lond.)
Longden, James Morley, B.A., Thomas, Herbert Watkins ton Cooper, Priestley
Thomas, Percy Oliver
Lovibond, William Oliver
Thorn, Henry Gilbert Alexander Benson, Herbert James Cork, John Sydney, B.A. (Camb.)
Lucas, Edwin Albery
Thornton, Thomas Gilbert Bette, John Farrow, B.A. (Camb.) Cove, Herbert John
Mabane, Alfred Victor
Todd, Charles William
Trehearne, Edward Scarlett
Turner, James Edward Bousfield, Hugh Delabere, B.A. Crump, Eldon Annesley, B A.
Marchant, William Francis, B.A. Urry, George Edward (Oxon.) (Oxon.)
Wadsworth, Henry Joseph Brandlein
Matheson, Alexander, B.A. (Oxon). Waite, Edmund
Walkley, Albert William
Mills, Frederick Fletcher
Walters, Frederick Stanley Brewer B.A., LL.B. (Camb.) Dickinson, Henry Tattersfield Monk, Pbilip Henry
Watson, Reginald Cyrus Brett, George Arthur Frederick Drake, Charles Frederick
Moor, Arthur Harry, B.A. (Camb) Weatherhead, Harry Robinson