Byrne, J. FELIX HADLEY & CO. (LIM.) v. FELIX HADLEY. 11th July. CHEQUE SALE OF BUSINESS, AND 66 ALL BOOK AND OTHER DEBTS AND FULL BENEFIT OF ALL SECURITIES FOR SUCH DEBTS"-CHEQUE UN CASHED AT DATE of Sale-CONDITIONAL PAYMENT. This was an action for damages and an account in respect of a sale of property by the defendant to the plaintiff, but only one point calls for a report. The plaintiffs claimed that a sum of £1,092 7s. 10d. was due to them in respect of an agreement for sale of the business, good will, stockin-trade, "and all book and other debts due to the vendor in connection with the said business and all securities for such debts." The defendant had under the agreement sold the business, debts, &c., to the defendants as existing on the 31st of December, 1887. Before that date the defendant had received a cheque on account of a business debt, but had not cashed it until after the date of the sale. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that as the cheque had not been cashed the debt in respect of which it had been paid had passed to them under the agreement, and that the cheque would also pass as a security. BYRNE, J., held that the cheque did not pass under the agreement. The cheque could not be regarded as a security for a debt that was transferred, for the securities mentioned in the agreement were securities which were held in respect of unpaid debts. It was not intended that debts which had been paid conditionally or unconditionally should pass to the defendants, and this debt had been paid conditionally. The agreement between the defendant and his debtor practically was that the cheque should operate as a payment of the debt, until the condition was rendered void by the bank's dishonouring the cheque. As a matter of fact the bank had honoured the cheque, the condition had been fulfilled, and the payment dated from the day on which the cheque had been received.-COUNSEL, Astbury, Q.C., and Kirby; Eve, QC., and Ingpen. SOLICITORS, Field, Roscoe, & Co.; Burton, Yeates, & Hart. [Reported by J. ARTHUR PRICE, Barrister-at-Law.] were acting within their statutory rights, and had been guilty of no negligence under the Act. Then, also, they had done no damage; the plaintiffs had placed their pipes under the road, as they were entitled to do, and the defendants lowered the surface of the road, as they were entitled to do. They had not even exposed the plaintiffs' pipes, and until the plaintiffs had actually suffered damage they (the defendants) were not liable. Moreover it had been decided in several cases that public bodies acting strictly under their statutory powers could not be held liable for damage resulting to other parties in consequence of their so acting: Bolton v. Crowther (2 Barn. & Cr. 703). KEKEWICH, J., said that no doubt it was a rule of law that, where a corporation or public body was empowered by an Act of Parliament to do certain things, it was not liable for damage caused by its carrying out its powers, unless compensation for such damages was provided for by the Act itself. Where, however, no provision for compensation was contained in the Act of Parliament the question whether the public body is acting strictly within its powers must be closely looked into, and the powers must not be used oppressively. Injury, however, was only the measure of damage, carelessness or negligence was the cause of action. In this case no damage had so far been done, but counsel for the defendant could not deny that, if you put the pipes near the surface there would be a reason. able chance of damage sufficient to support a quia timet" action. Then defendants' counsel had said that the plaintiffs themselves could lay their pipes deeper and so avert the prospect of damage. That, however, was obviously no answer. It had also been urged that this was at all events not a case for injunction, but only for damages. That was in a sense true, but the court had a wide discretion as to granting an injunction, and here his lordship thought it was the best course to check the risk of mischief at the outset and to grant an injunction. The form of injunction proposed by the plaintiffs went too far, and the proper form would be to restrain the defendants, &c., from altering the position of the plaintiffs' mains and pipes so as to place them in a position where they would be more liable to damage from frost, &c., than they were at present.-COUNSEL, T. R. Warrington, Q.C., and F. Gore-Browne; W. Lanfear; W. W. Young & Son. LUND v. LIVERPOOL SCHOOL FOR INDIGENT BLIND. Byrne, J. 2nd Renshaw, Q.C., and C. Lyttelton Chubb. SOLICITORS, Lanfear, Tanner, & July. INCOME TAX-SALARY PAYABLE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OR ABATEMENT FOR TAXES AT A TIME WHEN INCOME TAX NOT PAYABLE-RIGHT TO DEDuct INCOME TAX (5 & 6 VICT. c. 35), SCHEDULE E, RULES 1 AND 6. This was a summons to determine the liability of the trustees of a certain charity to pay income tax in respect of the salary of a chaplain. The charity was incorporated under a special Act, 10 Geo. 4, c. 15, and by section 26 the wardens or trustees were to pay the chaplain a sum of not less than £300 or more than £500 a year without deduction or abatement for taxes. At this date the income tax was not payable, but it was afterwards reimposed by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35. The present chaplain was appointed in 1884, and had received up to the present date a salary of £500, out of which he had himself paid income tax for several years. He now claimed the salary in full, and that the wardens should pay income tax. BYRNE, J., held that the wardens were bound to deduct the tax.COUNSEL, Hughes, Q.C., and Sampson; Eve, Q.C., and Deacon. SOLICITORS, Stone, Fletcher, Hall, & Stone. This was a motion by the plaintiffs asking that an interlocutory injunction might be granted to restrain the defendants from lowering their streets and footways in their district whereunder the plaintiffs' pipes and mains were laid in any manner which would leave such pipes or mains without a sufficient covering of soil or other material to protect them from injury, whether by the passing of traffic, the effect of frost, or otherwise, unless the defendants should first alter the position of the said pipes and mains by placing them at a depth below the proposed new surface of such streets or footways not being less than the depth at which the same were then below the present surface of such streets or footways. The defendants, according to the evidence, intended to lower some of their roads in such a manner as would bring the plaintiffs' pipes within a few inches of the surface, and the plaintiffs contended that this would render their pipes much more liable to damage from frost, traffic, &c., than they were at their present depths; and that, if their pipes had to be lowered in order to escape such liability to damage, the defendants were bound to so lower them. In support of their contention they referred to "The Metropolis Local Management Act, 1853," s. 98 (under which a district board is empowered to pave and repair streets), the material portion of which is as follows: And to cause the ground or soil thereof to be raised or lowered, and to alter the position of any mains or pipes in or under any such street, such alteration to be made subject to the approval of the engineer of the company to which such mains or pipes belong." Accordingly they urged that if the defendants exercised their powers as to altering the surface of the street, they were bound to also exercise their power as to altering the position of the mains, and might not in the exercise of their powers damage the plaintiffs: Geddis v. Proprietors of the Bann Resevoir (3 App. Cis. 430). All they were desirous of was to be placed in the same state of security as they had been hitherto that is to say, that the defendants should see that their pipes were relaid at the same depth as before. The defendants, on the other haud, contended that the motion was entirely wrong, that they were under an obligation to look after the safety of the public, and that they Case stated by Mr. Baggallay, police magistrate for the borough of West Ham. A summons was issued, upon the information of the appelthe respondents were the owners, on the 6th of December, 1897, on the lant, against the respondents, stating that the steamboat Rotifer, of which River Thames, in the borough of West Ham, unlawfully towed a barge without having a licensed waterman on board such steamboat for the purpose of assisting in the management and navigation of the same, contrary to bye-law 60 made under the Watermen's and Lightermen's found the following facts-namely, that the steamboat did on the 6th of Amendment Act, 1859. Upon the hearing of the summons the magistrate December, 1897, on the Thames off Silvertown, tow and navigate one barge without having on board such steamboat a licensed waterman to assist in the management and navigation thereof. Bye-law 60 is as follows: "That every steamboat navigated on the river within the limits of this Act in the towing of barges, lighters, vessels, and craft shall have one licensed waterman on board such steamboat for the purpose of assisting in the management and navigation thereof. And if any such steamboat shall be navigated in contravention of this section the owner thereof, or the master in charge of the same, shall incur a penalty not exceeding 40., and that every barge, lighter, or craft towed on the river by steamboat shall have one licensed lighterman, or licensed apprentice at the least, in charge thereof, to steer and navigate the same "-with a like penalty. This bye-law was made under section 80 of the Act, which provided: "The said court of master wardens and assistants are hereby empowered from time to time to make such bye-laws as they think proper for the government of the said company, and for the government and regulation of lightermen and watermen, and for carrying into effect the purposes of this Act, and the several powers and authorities hereby vested in the said company, with power to annex reasonable penalties and forfeitures for the breach of such bye-laws respectively, not exceeding the sum of £5 for any one offence, so that the same bye-laws be not inconsistent with any of the laws of this kingdom, or with this Act, or with any of the bye-laws, rules, orders, or regulations made or to be made by the Conservators of the River Thames," &c. It was contended by the respondents (1) that the bye-law was ultra vires and not within the scope of section 80 of the Act; (2) that the bye-law was inconsistent with the Act, as in section 66 there is a proviso that no penalty should be payable if the owner proves to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he is unable for the usual compensation to obtain the services of any such lighterman or apprentice, but in bye-law 60 there is no similar proviso; (3) that the bye-law was unreasonable, as imposing no corresponding obligation on the watermen to work on a steam-tug. The magistrate dismissed the summons on the ground that, looking at the general scope of the Act and the interpretation given by section 3 to the word "watermen," bye-law 60 was ultra vires so far as the information was concerned. 66 The question now was whether the magistrate was right in law in holding THE COURT (WILLS and KENNEDY, JJ.) dismissed the appeal. 66 66 WILLS, J.-The bye-law was one made by the Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames under section 80 of their Act of 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. cxxxiii. 8. 2). That section provides that they could make bye-laws "for the government of the company, and for the government and regulation of lightermen and watermen, and for carrying into effect the purposes of this Act, and the several powers and authorities hereby vested in the company." The bye-law in question was the 60th. [His lordship read the bye-law.] The word "vessel" in this bye-law must be read as vessel of the like kind with barge or lighter. The only craft which the Act of 1859 dealt with, excepting passenger boats, were lighters, barges, and kindred craft, and when vessel was introduced it referred to vessels of the like kind with lighters and barges, and not to vessels of all sorts. It was fair therefore in favour of the bye-law, to give it the same meaning in the bye-law, otherwise it would be preposterously beyond anything within the purview of the Act. Now, the bye-law was clearly not one for the government of the company, nor for the governing and regulation of lightermen or watermen. It could only be supported, therefore, if it aided in carrying into effect the purposes of the Act, or the power and authorities vested in the company. Part of the preamble to the Act recited that it was expedient that proper regulations should be made for the navigation of barges, lighters, boats, and other like craft carrying goods, and for the regulation of persons employed to navigate the same, and for the security of passengers, and for the orderly conduct of traffic on the river, and it was argued broadly that all these matters in the recital were amongst the purposes of the Act. If that were sound, hardly any subject connected with the traffic on the river might not be dealt with, from a cork boat to an ocean steamer, or the speed, manning, lights, and everything else which might be considered to bear upon the security of passengers or the orderly conduct of traffic. This argument, however, distorted the proper office of a preamble. It does not follow because large words are used in a preamble that everything to which they could be referred come within the scope of the Act. They did not extend the provisions of the Act beyond what the enacting parts of the Act contained. Section 2 defined a "passenger boat"; section 3 defined a lighterman as any person working or navigating for hire a lighter, barge, boat, or other like craft," and waterman as any person navigating, rowing, or working for hire a passenger boat." Section 66 enacted that "no barge, lighter, boat, or other like craft for the carrying of goods shall be worked or navigated unless there be in charge of such craft a lighterman licensed in manner herein before mentioned," or an apprentice duly qualified. A penalty was imposed unless the owner of the boat proved that he was unable for the usual compensation to obtain the services of a licensed waterman or apprentice. It appears to us that there was no single provision or purpose of the Act which was subserved by the requirement that a steamboat towing barges should have on board one licensed waterman to assist in the navigation and inanagement thereof. The byelaw did not even provide for compulsory pilotage, but merely for compulsory employment. A person who was to assist in such a way would necessarily be under the orders of the captain. He would have no right to give an order or take the helm or do anything but obey the captain's orders, a position for which any able-bodied man accustomed to a tug would be just as competent as the waterman. The person who, under the bye-law was to be taken on board the tug was not even to be a lighterman, but a waterman, who, according to the Act, was a person who had to do specially with passenger boats. The Act gave no special privileges of employment to watermen or lightermen, except to the extent provided for by section 66 as to lightermen, or 67 as to watermen. The bye-law attempted to extend these privileges and to force upon the owners of tug-boats members of the company to perform services for which the owners, so far as the Act was concerned, were at liberty to go into the open market. The tug is not a lighter or other craft for the carrying of goods. There is nothing in the Act giving the company power to interfere with the owner or master of the tug in managing his steamboat. The framers of the bye-law have taken a very extravagant view of these powers of legislation. We have no doubt that the bye-law in question is radically bad. Even if it were within the general scope of the bye-laws it would be in the highest degree unreasonable on another ground. There is no exemption from the penalty whatever be the circumstances under which the failure to take a waterman on board the tug occurred. There might be none available, or the one available might demand an exorbitant sum, but the penalty attached notwithstanding, and the saving provision which in the Act was made applicable to a case under section 66, was wanting in this bye-law. But our objection to this bye-law is far deeper and could not be removed by any modification of the bye-law. The cases of Elmore v. Hunter (3 C. P. D. 116) and Rolles V. Newell (39 W. R. 96, 25 Q. B. D. 335), which were cited for the prosecution, do not affect this case. In conclusion, bye-law 60 would teem to subserve no purpose except to find work, or at all events pay, for watermen, and, except in the very general words of the preamble, nothing is to be found in the Act to support it.-COUNSEL, Ashton; C. A. Russell, Q.C., and Tudor Howell. SOLICITORS, A. C. Kent; Sewell, Edwards, & Nevill. [Reported by Sir SHERSTON BAKER, Bart., Barrister-at-Law. THE MAYOR, &c., OF LIVERPOOL v. THE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE This was a case stated by justices of the county of Montgomery, sitting at quarter sessions, upon an appeal from the Assessment Committee of the Llanfyllin Union with respect to the rating of such portions of the Liverpool waterworks as were situated within the parish of Llanwddyn. The construction of the Liverpool waterworks were authorized from time to time by various Acts of Parliament. The works in the parish of Llanwddyn were authorized by the Liverpool Waterworks Act of 1880, and it was provided by that Act that they should form part of the general undertaking, and should be subject to the provisions of the Liverpool Waterworks Acts. By section 59 of the Liverpool Waterworks Act, 1862, the appellants could only charge in each year rates upon the consumers of the water up to the amount of the water account for the year. The works in the parish of Llanwddyn consisted of a large part of a reservoir called Lake Vyrnwy, with banks, dams, and appurtenances, and of a tunnel called the Hirnant tunnel and its appurtenances The appellants were rated and assessed by the assessment committee, upon a net assessment of £15,332, in the sum of £542 13s., being a rate of 8d. in the pound. In estimating the rateable value the appellants took the total cost of the construction attributable to as much of the reservoir and of the land in which it stood as was within the parish. To arrive at the effective capital cost they divided the amount by two because out of 52 million gallons per day, which was the total capacity of the reservoir, only 26 million gallons was being sent down. To this they added the effective capital cost of the Hirnant tunnel, and they arrived at the rateable value by taking 2 per cent. of the result. Two and three-quarters per cent. was taken because that rate or a less rate was the rate at which the appellants could borrow money. It was proved that the appellants could actually borrow at 2 per cent. The respondent's estimate differed from the appellants' in the following points: In arriving at the cost of the reservoir and site they included the cost of certain roads and bridges which the appellants constructed in accordance with the provisions of their Act. The cost of a church, vicarage, and schools erected under a like compulsion in substitution for buildings submerged by the formation of the reservoir was not included. Though 52 million gallons was the total capacity of the reservoir yet the catchment areas now connected with the reservoir The respondents, were capable of yielding only 41 million gallons. therefore, multiplied the total cost of the reservoir and site by the fraction 26-41. They further found that the gross rental value of the whole of the Liverpool waterworks undertaking was 4 per cent. of the total capital value of the whole of the works, and they therefore took as the rateable value of the works in the parish of Llanwddyn 4 per cent. of the total effective cost, less rates and 20 per cent. for maintenance and renewal. The quarter sessions held that, in order to ascertain the effective capital value of the undertaking, the sums expended, not only on the roads and bridges, but also on the church, vicarage, and schools, ought to be included, and that the effective capital value of the reservoir and site ought to be taken at 26-41 of the expenditure. They were further of opinion (paragraph 24) that in consequence of the greater demand at the present time for such sites and of the increased cost of labour and materials, the outlay would be greater than the actual cost of the site and works of the corporation, in consideration of which the rateable value should be taken at 3 per cent. on the outlay, rather than 2 per cent., the rate at which the appellants could borrow; and, finally, that if in law the reservoir and dam might be rated separately, and not as integral parts of the appellants' water undertaking, their annual value if let as a separate hereditament should be arrived at by an estimate based upon 3 per cent. of the capital expenditure properly attributable thereto. THE COURT (RIDLEY and PHILLIMORE, JJ.) quashed the order of quarter sessions and ordered the rate to be reduced. RIDLEY, J., said (in a written judgment) that the appellants and respondents had adopted in principle the same method of arriving at the rateable value of the property, but in carrying out the principle the The quarter differences arose which required the court's decision. sessions had left five questions. The first question was whether the reservoir and works were to be treated as integral parts of the appellants' water undertaking or as severable from the rest of the undertaking. The court thought that such part of the waterworks as lay within the parish was a separate rateable hereditament in it and should be rated accordingly upon an estimate of the rent which it would yield after making the statutory deductions: see Reg. v. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. (28 I. J. M. C. 135). But it must be taken that the reservoir and works were part of the whole undertaking for the purpose of distributing water as a source of profit, and though they did not directly earn anything in the parish, yet they conduced to earning elsewhere. The whole undertaking continued in operation, and therefore the owner of the whole must be assumed to pay a contractor adequate remuneration for land and fixed capital vested in these parts of the undertaking and for the labour and skill required for the construction and maintenance. The contractor stood in the relation of occupying tenant in the words of the case cited: "The part within the parish is the rateable subject and the local rateable value is such sum as will pay the rent of the land and the profit on fixed capital therein." The answer, therefore, was that the reservoir and works were integral portions of the undertaking, and although rateable separately, were not to be valued apart from the rest of the undertaking. The second question was whether there ought to be taken into account the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 24 of the case, in addition to the rate of interest at which the appellants could have borrowed The court, in money at the date of the making of the rate. the absence of direct evidence, could not feel certain that the supposed greater demand for sites existed, and that in this case the capital value should be arrived at from the cost of the works as a basis. The third question was whether, in order to ascertain the effective capital brought against this lady, the debtor, before she was married, and judg- LAW SOCIETIES. value of the undertaking, the amount expended upon roads, bridges, church, &c., ought to be concluded. The court was clearly of opinion that none of them ought to be included. It had been argued that the amounts expended were part of the cost of the works. It was clear, however, that they were not; but that they were to be regarded as expenses to which the appellants had been put in carrying out the obligations put upon them by Parliament. If they enhanced the value of the lands, as to which there was not sufficient evidence, that must be taken into account in the rateable value of the lands enhanced. The fourth question was as to whether the value of the reservoir and site ought to be 261-41 or 261-521 of the total capital expenditure. At present the daily supply was only about one-half of the complete or total possible supply. Prima facie, therefore, the effective capital value was also one-half of the total, but on behalf of the respondents it was said that, the total now received into the reservoir being only 41 million gallons a day and the total supply being 26 millions a day, the proper fraction to be used in the calculations was 264-41. In other words, although the supply was only one-half of the intended amount, the rateable value of the effective capital was to be taken at more than one-half. It was also contended that the appellants should, in order to justify their contention, add to the capital value the cost of including the additional catchment area which is required to bring the daily supply into the reservoir to the amount of 52 million gallons. But it was the reservoir and works which were here rated, not the works which had not been carried out; and although it was true that the proportion between the gallons supplied out of the reservoir and those actually received into it THE GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE INCORPORATED was at the time 261 to 41, that proportion did not represent the true relation between effective capital value and total cost of construction. The reservoir was large enough to receive 52 millions daily, and had been constructed and completed for those dimensions, but it did only supply one-half of that quantity. For the purpose of the rate the court thought that the comparison supplied the true proportion. The case of Reg. v. The South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. (16 Q. B. D. 186) was relied on as shewing that the cost of connecting the additional catchment area with the resevoir ought to be added to the capital value. But in that case the works had been completed and formed part of the undertaking. As to the last question, whether the rateable value ought to be taken at 3 per cent. or 2 per cent. on the effective value of the undertaking, that was largely a question of fact as to which the court would not interfere with the decision of quarter sessions. The principle on which the capital value was to be calculated had been stated. The court thought that the percentage upon it ought not to be higher than the necessary rate of interest at which the money could be borrowed. At the same time, when all the circumstances were considered, the court could not say that the percentage had been wrongly fixed at 3 per cent., although it was higher than the rate at which the money could now be raised. The order of quarter sessions ought to be quashed, and the rate reduced in accordance with the opinion of the court.-COUNSEL, Balfour Browne, Q.C., and E. H. Lloyd; Marshall, Q.C., and Arnold Herbert. SOLICITORS, Clare; Robbins, Billing, & Co., for Pugh & Jones, Llanfyllin. [Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.] Bankruptcy Cases. Re A DEBTOR. Ex parte THE DEBTOR. C. A. No. 2. 8th July. BANKRUPTCY-MARRIED WOMAN NOT TRADING SEPARATELY FROM HER HUSBAND-LIABILITY TO BE MADE A BANKRUPT RECEIVING ORDER DEBT INCURRED, Judgment OBTAINED, ACT OF BANKRUPTCY COMMITTED, AND PETITION PRESENTED, BEFORE DEBTOR'S MARRIAGE-RECEIVING ORDER MADE AFTER MARRIAGE-MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (45 & 46 Vicr. c. 75), s. 1, SUB-SECTION 5. In This was an appeal by the debtor, a married woman, against a receiving order made by Registrar Giffard. In December, 1897, proceedings were taken against the debtor, then a spinster, by a person who alleged himself to be her creditor for a sum of over £200. In January, 1898, the plaintiff obtained judgment for a sum of £212 103. 2d., representing debt and costs. The debtor having failed to comply with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice served by another creditor in November, 1897, in respect of another debt, the plaintiff then presented a bankruptcy petition against her. The petition came on for hearing on the 22nd of February, 1898, when, the debt and the act of bankruptcy having been admitted, the further hearing was adjourned till the 3rd of March, 1898. On the 2nd of March, 1898, the debtor was married. the subsequent proceedings it was admitted that she was not trading separately from her husband. On the 3rd of March, 1898, the debtor admitting the debt and the act of bankruptcy, and undertaking not to ask for costs against the petitioner if the petition should be dismissed, the hearing was further adjourned. After another adjournment the petition was disposed of on the 21th of March, 1898, when Registrar Giffard, following a decision of Registrar Linklater in an unreported case in 1894, made a receiving order against the debtor. There was no other decision covering the question which arose in the present case as to the liability of a married woman in such circumstances to be made a bankrupt. The debtor appealed. On the hearing of the appeal the petitioning creditor did not appear. THE COURT (LINDLEY, M.R., and CHITTY and COLLINS, L.JJ) allowed the appeal and discharged the order. LINDLEY, M.R., said: I do not think we should gain anything by further consideration of this case. It appears to us that upon the true construction of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, the order appealed against cannot be supported, and must be discharged. The case is certainly a peculiar one. An action was LAW SOCIETY. The annual general meeting of this society was held at The Woodhouse, in Earl Bathurst's Park, Cirencester, on Wednesday, the 6th of July inst. The following members were present: Mr. Edward C. Sewell (Cirencester), the president, in the chair, Messrs. H. Bevir, vice-president (Wootton Bassett), J. Mullings, E. B. Haygarth and C. Tudway (Cirencester), W. Warman, A. H. G. Heelas, L. D. Winterbotham, A. J. Morton Ball, and R. H. Smith (Stroud), W. Forrester (Malmesbury), A. H. Iles (Fairford), A. Ernest Withy (Swindon), R. Ley Wood, M. Llewellyn Evans, J. B. Winterbotham, and W. G. Gurney (Cheltenham), G. Whitcombe, A. S. Helps, E. T. Gardom, G. S. Blake way, F. W. Jones, and John W. Coren, hon. secretary and treasurer (Gloucester). The report of the committee of management for the past year was adopted on the motion of the president, seconded by Mr. Bevir. Gratuities to the amount of £46 10s. were voted to relatives of deceased solicitors, and a donation of ten guineas to the Solicitors' Benevolent Association. It was resolved to continue in association with the Associated Provincial Library Society for the current year. Mr. Harry Bevir (Wootton Bassett) and Mr. John Bryan (Gloucester) were elected president and vice-president respectively for the year ensuing. The following were elected to act with the president, vice-president, and secretary as the committee of management for the ensuing year: Messrs. R. Ellett, M. F. Carter, W. Warman, James B. Winterbotham, E. C. Sewell, J. P. Wilton Haines, W. Forrester, and A. J. Morton Ball. A prize of five guineas was awarded to Mr. Reginald Herbert Penley, B.A. (who was articled to Mr. J. G. Wenden, of Dursley), for having passed the final examination of the Incorporated Law Society with first Incorporated Law Society. class honours and who was alɛo awarded the Clifford's-inn Prize by the The following new members were elected: Messrs. T. F. Cottam and Ellett and R. J. Mullings (Cirencester), and G. A. H. White (Chi ppenT. E. Rickerby (Cheltenham), F. G. Playne and C. Upton (Stroud), R. W. ham). Unqualified Practitioners.-This matter was discussed and the following resolution, proposed by Mr. Gardom and seconded by Mr. Morton Ball, was passed: "That it is the opinion of this meeting that the practice referred to in the report should be prohibited and that the Lord Chancellor should be requested to issue directions to the county court judges upon the matter." The secretary was ordered to send a copy of the above resolution to the secretary of the Associated Provincial Law Societies. A vote of thanks to the retiring president concluded the business of the meeting.. After driving to Sapperton and Pimbury Park the members returned to Cirencester, where they dined, together with Mr. R. Ellett, Mr. H. Kinneir, and others. The party included Mr. E. W. Williamson, the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society U.K. The following are extracts from the report of the committee: Land Transfer.-The Land Transfer Act of 1897 having been passed last session, considerable curiosity was excited as to the particular county which would be first selected by the Lord Chancellor for the experiment of its adoption. Early in November the London County Council received from the Privy Council notice pursuant to the Act that it was proposed to make an order applying part 3 of the Act to the county of London. The question of applying the Act to London being a very important matter, the county council, before coming to a decision thereon, took steps to obtain the views of those in the county who were specially interested by despatching a circular letter to eighty-eight corporate and other bodies, including the Incorporated Law Society, requesting their views on the subject. The effect of the answer of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society was that they did not feel able to reply to the particular questions submitted to them without prefacing that reply by the statement that in their opinion the system of registration of title embodied in the Acts of 1875 and 1897 was not adapted to the circumstances of this country, and would in practice be found inconvenient to landowners and embarrassing in the conduct of business for many years. In their opinion so novel a system should not be made compulsory at all, but should, in accordance with the report of the Commons Committee of 1879, be left to make its way on its merits. Assuming that the experiment was to be tried in some locality willing to accept it, the Council thought that, having regard to the enormous value of the property affected, and for other good reasons, the experiment should not be attempted in London. Of the eighty-eight corporate bodies and persons whose views were solicited by the London County Council, sixty-seven reported disapproving of the application of the Act, and only fourteen in favour of it. Notwithstanding the weight of opinion against the Act, the London County Council, at a special meeting on the 15th of February, 1898, decided not to veto the application of the Act to the county of London. The Rule Committee appointed under the provisions of the Act have recently issued their draft rules for consideration by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society and others, and the same have received most careful attention, and various amendments have been suggested. Unqualified Practitioners.-The attention of your committee has, at the instance of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, been drawn to the increasing practice throughout the county court districts, both in the metropolis and the provinces, of debt collectors, and so-called trade protection or debt collecting societies and other unqualified persons, taking proceedings and appearing in county courts in various ways for reward, usually in the form of a commission on the recovery of the debts. Particular reference was made to proceedings taken in 1889 (at the instance of this society) by the Incorporated Law Society against an unqualified person at Swindon. In that case there were two points: first, irregularity by the unqualified person (who was paid by commission) in seeking to be heard, and also his misconduct in the mode in which he conducted the business. The judge in that case said that the particular act that might be done by virtue of the rules by an agent, if it could be legally done, would not apply to an agent for fee or reward, and in the result the unqualified person was precluded from appearing or acting in future in the court at Swindon as agent for the parties in any proceedings. The Council state, in the report of a committee of that body communicated to the provincial societies, that they have consulted counsel with reference to the whole question, and his advice was to the effect that, having regard to the difference of opinion which appears to prevail among county court judges on the subject and to the views expressed by local law societies in regard to the propriety and utility of the practice in question (on the ground that it interferes little if at all with the interests of folicitors who are employed in such cases as will carry costs, and to whom it is not worth while to attend to such as will not do so), steps should first be taken to ascertain how far it is the feeling of the profession generally that the practice ought to be prohibited, and that if the result should shew that there is a general consensus of opinion against the continuance of the practice, steps should then be taken with a view to induce the Lord Chancellor to issue an instruction to the county court judges on the subject. The committee invite an expression of the views of the members of the society on the question at the annual meeting. Money-lending inquiry.-The Select Committee of the House of Commons on Money-lending having inquired if the Council of the Incorporated Law Society U.K. had any suggestions to offer as to remedies or alterations in the present state of the law with regard to money-lending, the subject was referred to a committee, of which your president was a member. The report, which was adopted and forwarded to the select committee, pointed out that the measure of registration and licensing was not practicable, while the proposal that professional money-lenders should be compelled to trade only in their own names involved the practical difficulty of defining "professional money-lenders " in such a way as to include cnly the so-called professional money-lender, and to exclude bankers and others who lend money. The recommendations of the committee were as follows: To raise the minimum limits of bills of sale from £30 to £50, to re-enact the provisions in the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, that bills of sale should be attested by a solicitor, and that the attestation should state that the effect of it had been explained to the grantor; to give a borrower under a bill of sale liberty to repay a loan, nominally payable at a fixed date or by instalments, by tendering at any time the principal sum with interest, and fourteen days' interest in lieu of notice; to declare and extend the powers of the High Court and county courts, so as to enable them to interfere where there has been oppression or unfair dealing, and especially that this relief should be rendered available without unnecessary publicity. SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Wednesday, the 13th inst, Mr. Henry Morten Cotton in the chair. The other directors present were: Messrs. W. Beriah Brook, Grantham R. Dodd, W. Geare, J. Roger B. Gregory, Samuel Harris (Leicester), Augustus Helder, M.P. (Whitehaven), J. C. Gray Hill (Liverpool), John Hunter, Richard Pennington, J.P., Sidney Smith, Richard W. Tweedie, F. T. Woolbert, and J. T. Scott (secretary). A sum of £580 was distributed in grants of relief, thirty-eight new members were admitted to the association, and other general business transacted. Sir Richard Webster is to preside at the dinner to Dr. W. G. Grace on Tuesday next. LEGAL NEWS. OBITUARY. He retired from The death is announced of Mr. HENRY ROSE, solicitor, on the 25th ult., London, and was admitted a solicitor in 1851, and was at one time a at the age of seventy-three. Mr. Rose was educated at King's College, partner in the firm of Messrs. Baxter, Rose, & Norton. practice in 1888, and subsequently devoted much of his time to charitable institutions. mew's Hospital and of the Foundling Hospital, and a member of the He was a governor of Christ's Hospital and St. Bartholocommittees of St. John's Foundation School, Leatherhead, and the Great Western Railway and the Eagle Insurance Co. He was also a director of the Brompton Hospital for Consumption. July 18.-Mr. ALFRED RICHARDS, at the Mart, at 2, The Brentford Gas Co., £15,000 of New Stock, 1881, ranking for a standard dividend of 7 per cent., subject to sliting scale, last dividend having been 9 per cent. (See advertisement, July 9, p. 3) July 19.-Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, FARMER, & BRIDGEWATER, at the Mart, at 2, Block of Freehold Shops and Show Rooms, Nos. 175, 177, 179, and 181, Oxford-street, occupying a fine position on the south side of the street near to the Circus; let for 21 years from Michaelmas. 1896, at £2,120 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Thorne & Welsford, and Messrs. Phelps, Sidgwick, & Biddle, both of London. (See advertisement, July 9, p. 3.) July 19.-Mr. ALFRED RICHARDS, at the Mart, at 2, valuable Freehold Estate at Ponder's End and Enfield Highway, comprising upwards of 112 acres of Building Land part containing excellent brick earth), with frontages to London-road; the property is intersected by the Cheshunt Branch Line of the G.E.R.; with Business and other Premises, together with 29 Freehold Cottages. Solicitors, Messrs. Pennington & Son, London. (See advertisement, this week, p. 3.) July 20.-Messrs. DOUGLAS YOUNG & Co., at the Mart, at 2, Freehold and Leasehold Properties and Building Land: -City of London: Leasehold; rental £350. Shepherd's Bush: Freehold Building Land. Lewisham: 112 and 111, Lee-road; let at £5. Tooting: Freehold Ground of £5 163. 81. Loughborough Junction: Leaseholds; let at 22s. Clapham: Leaseholds; let at £55 and £50. Clapham: Detached Villa; let at £65. Westminster-bridge-road: Rental value £150. Deptford and Charlton: Weekly Property. (See advertisement, July 9, p. 641) July 20.-Messrs. EDWIN Fox & BOUSFIELD, at the Mart, at 2: POLICIES: For £2,000; gentleman aged 77; premium £13 18s. 9d. STONEBRIDGE ESTATE, HAGGERSTON : One-twelfth of Freehold Property covering 7 acres of land, with 283 houses let at ground-rents amounting to £941 per annum; also a Reversion to One-twentyfourth of same estate; lady aged 63. Solicitor, W. T. Coventon, Esq., London. REVERSION: To One Sixteenth of £94,000; lady aged 63; invested in first-class Railway Stock. Solicitor, W. T. Coventon, Esq., London. IMPROVED GROUND-RENT: Equal to an annuity of £670 for 45 years; property occupied by the Great Western Railway Co. Solicitor, W. T. Coventon, Esq., London. (See advertisements, this week, p. 3.) July 20.-Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, at 2, the Semi-detached Residence, 140, Loughborough-park; rental value, £38. Solicitors, Messrs. E. C. Kilsby & Son, London.-Sixteen Houses, within easy distance of Enfield Town, leases 87 and 83 years unexpired; also Freehold Ground-rents of £15 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Harris & Chetham, London.-103, Parnell-road, Bow, producing £41 12s. per annum, and Shop Premises, let at £25. Solicitor, Arthur A. Banes, Esq., Stratford. July 21.-Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, at 2: REVERSIONS: To Islands, about 57 miles in length by about 14 miles in width, situate in the To One-fourth of a Residuary Estate of Railway and Corporation Stocks, value To One Twenty-fifth Share of a Trust Fund amounting to £30,000; lady aged 63, To £2,091 2 per Cent. Consols; lady aged 48. Solicitors, Messrs. Woodcock, To One-third of £173 East Indian Railway Annuity, Class B; lady aged 65. To One-third of £6,000 invested on Mortgage; lady aged 34. To £1,050 24 per Cent. Consols; lady aged 46. Solicitor, E. Elvy Robb, Esq., Tunbridge Wells. To One-eighth of Freehold Properties at Wolverhampton, producing £102 per annum; gentlemen aged 60 and 57. Solicitors, Messrs. Colyer & Colyer, London. To One-third of £14,061 India 3 per Cent. Stock; lady aged 57. Solicitors, Messrs. Crosse & Sons, London. To a Trust Fund represented by £4,906 India 3 per Cent. and £1,959 India 33 per Cent. Stock; lady aged 74. Solicitors, Messrs. Kingsford, Dorman, & Co., London. To One-seventh of a Trust Estate value £9,330; a gentleman aged 78 and lady aged 68. Solicitor, Arthur Tyler, Esq., London. To One-fourth of £5,000; lady aged 69. Solicitor, J. Harwood, Esq., London. To One-third of £2,732 Stock in the Surrey Commercial Dock Company; lady aged 85. Solicitor, John H. Hortin, Esq., London. To a Trust Fund of the value of £3,812; lady aged 67. Solicitor, Robert H. Nichols, Birmingham. To One-twentieth of £7,506 2 per Cent. Consols; lady aged 64. Also to One Thirty-fifth of a Trust Estate producing £1,509 per annum; ladies aged 70 and 43. Solicitors, Messrs. Godfrey & Robertson, London. To Eight Forty-ninths of a Trust Estate value £30,457; lady aged 64. Solicitors, To One-fourteenth of a Trust Fund value £19,000; lady aged 56. POLICIES: Solicitor, Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, FARMER, & BRIDGEWATER sold at the Mart, on the 11th inst, a portion of the Tyrell Estates, situated at Bethnal Green, in 56 lots, for £71,200; and on the 12th, two Freehold Farms in Bedfordshire of over 300 acres each, for £11,500. Messrs. C. C. & T. MOORE, on Thursday, sold the Friends' Mission Institute, at the corner of Dorset-street, Commercial-road, for £1,450; a Leasehold Shop in Hampsteadread for £1,270; a House in Harrington-square, N.W.; 10 Freeholds at Sydenham; and several lots of land and East End investments; total, £9,850. WINDING UP NOTICES. London Gazette.-FRIDAY, July 8. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. AXE VALE DEVON DAIRY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before July 21, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Albert Pryer Reece, Axminster Forward, Axminster, solor to liquidator "BRITISH COMMODORE" CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Aug 8, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to R HughesJones and Rice Williams, 88, The Albany, Old Hall st, Liverpool COSMOS SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Aug 20, to send in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Robert George Davey, 33, Cornhill LONDON AND PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented July 4, directed to be heard before Wright, J., on July 20. Cooper, 1, Budge row, solor for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of July 14 "SINGLE STROKE" PUNCHING AND EYELETTING MACHINE CO, LIMITED (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before Aug 21, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Thomas Charles Lemin, 1, St. Peter's Church walk, Nottingham THAMES HAURAKI GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Aug 20, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Spencer Garrett Bruff, 54, Old Broad st UNIVERSAL CORPORATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before August 31, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Alfred Samuel Peake, 80, Coleman st, Birchalls, Gracechurch st, solors to the liquidator FRIENDLY SOCIETY DISSOLVED. OUR LADY AND ST CUTHBERT BRANCH 78, CATHOLIC BENEFIT SOCIETY, Crook Catholic Schools, Durham June 15 London Gazette.-TUESDAY, July 12. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. CAMPION & CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented July 8, directed to be heard on July 20. Smith & Hudson, 6, Mincing lane, solors for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of July 19 CROSSLEYS, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Aug 31, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Harry Hands, 88, Colmore row, Birmingham. Pritchard, Birmingham, solor for liquidator CYCLE AND MOTOR ACCESSORIES CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented July 11, directed to be heard on July 20. Courtney Lewis, 3, Adelaide pl, London Bridge, solor for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of July 19 ECLIPSE MINERAL WATER CO, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (Bicester, Oxon)-Creditors are required, on or before August 27, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Arthur E. Preston, Cornmarket st, Oxford Walsh, solor to the liquidator FREEMANS, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before July 20, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr Edwin Bradshaw, Market st Chambers, Warrington. Roberts, Warrington, solor to the liquidator GAS ENGINE (ENGLAND) DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented July 5, directed to be heard July 20. Fowler & Co, 9, Clement's lane, solors for the petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of July 19 GREAT BOULDER SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before July 14, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to C. H. King, 46, Queen Victoria st. Edmund Kimber, Walbrook, solor to the liquidator LIMITED MINES ORE REDUCTION CO, LIMITED-By an order made by Mr Justice Byrne, dated June 29, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Ashurst & Co, solors for the petners RADNOR PRESS, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before August 8, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Charles J. March, 3, Church et, Old Jewry RHODESIA TRANSPORT, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented July 7, directed to be heard on July 20. Plunkett & Leader, 60, St. Paul's churchyard, agents for Wallis, Basingstoke, solor for petners. Notice of appearing must reach Messrs. Plunkett & Leader not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of July 19 SOUTHERN CROSS SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Aug 9, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Hardy W. A. Hislop, Broad st House. Pakeman, 20, Bucklersbury, solor for liquidator TRANSVAAL EXPLORING CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented July 9, directed to be heard on July 20. Wetherfield & Co, 1 Gresham bldgs, Guildhall, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of July 19 WALKER GINZLER & CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented July 8, directed to be heard on July 20 Bate & Co, 30, Bedford row, solors for petner Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of July 19 WALLACE G THOMSON & CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Aug 24, to send their names and addresses. and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Jonathan Ingham Learoyd, Esq, Halifax Godfrey & Co, Halifax, solors to the company FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. RICHARDS, THOMAS GLASBROOK, Swansea, Solicitor Aug 8 Richards v Harvey, North, J Thomas & Co, Swansea ROTHWELL, EDMUND, Marland, nr Rochdale, Tramway Manager Aug 5 Haldane v Rothwell, Registrar, Manchester Costeker, Darwen wich UNDER 22 & 23 VICг. CAP. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM. ANDERSON, Rev MICHAEL JAMES, Dawlish, Devon Aug 1 Bensly & Bolingbroke, Nor- BREEZE, SHADRACH, Liverpool, Shipbroker July 9 Buck & Co, Southport DEIGHTON, DOROTHY, Bradley, nr Huddersfield July 25 Wilson, Mirfield FRANKLIN, WILLIAM, Royton, Lancs, Farmer July 6 Mellor, Oldham |