« PreviousContinue »
stances are in any case required, and so the district registrar has certified in the answer he has given to the plaintiffs objections. On these grounds, and on these grounds only, I consider that the appeal fails. I say on these grounds only, because I am not disposed to go into the more general question to which the respondent's counsel was desirous of calling our attention, and on which we have not heard him, so that it would not be right for us to express any opinion adverse to what he has said. We sit here to dispose of appeals, and these considerations are sufllcient to dispose of the present appeal. The general questions as to Liverpool and Manchester business, and as to originating summonses issued there and the special privileges they are alleged to have, must therefore be left to be settled hereafter when some case calls for a decision on those points. Cor.r.n\-s, L.J., concurred.—Cou1\'sar., A. d B. Terrell; Era, Q,.C., and Preston; Rotch. Sotrcrrons, J. F. Harrison §- Burton, Liverpool; Burton, gates, §- Hart, for Tyrer, Kenian, Tyrer, §- Simpson, Liverpool; Norris §* 0.
Whereas, from the present state of the business before Mr. Justice North, Mr. Just-ioe Stirling, Mr. Justice Romer, and Mr. Justice Byrne respectively, it is expedient that a portion of the causes assigned to Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice Stirling, and Mr. Justice Romer, should for the purpose only of hearing or of trial be transferred to Mr. Justice Byrne; Now, I, the Right Honourable Hardinge Stanley, Earl of Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby order that the several causes and matters set forth in the schedules hereto, be accordingly transferred from the said Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice Stirling, and Mr. Justice Romer, to Mr. Justice Byme for the purpose only of hearing or of trial, and be marked in the cause books accordingly. And this order is to be drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several oflices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.
FIRST SCHEDULE. From Mr. Justice Nonrn. 1898. Manchester Ship Canal Co v Company of Proprietors of the Rochdnle Canal 1896 M 2,673 Feb 9
Akeroyd v Morley 1897 A 1,665 Feb 11
Roche v Hobson 1897 R 202 Feb 12
Flemingv Loe 1897 F 1,136 Feb 17
Din le v Coppen 1897 D 950 Feb 17
Hoifisnd v Chelsea Electricity Supply C0 ld 1898 H 183 Feb 24
Cox v Borthwick 1897 C 3,241 Feb 24
Wright v Davies 1897 ‘V 3,267 Feb 26
Fitzgerald v Branson, Kent, 8: Co ld 1897 F 1,576 March 1
Figgess v The Same 1898 229 March 5
Phllli s v The Same 1898 297 March5
Royal Sovereign Gold Mining Co id v King 1897 R 1,656 March 7
Earl's Court Hotels ld v Evans 1897 E 1,380 March 10
Tachytype Manufacturing Co, Incorporated v The Monotype Machine
(Britiah Patents) Syndicate id 1897 T 1,121 March 11 In re The Truffault Cycle & Tube Manufacturing Cold and Co's Acts motion March 19
Bsmett v Meekin 1897 B 2,701 March 21
\Vickham v Ogilvy 1898 W 539 March 26
Hart v Brie 1897 H 3,398 March 26
Parr v General Investors’ Syndicate ld 1897 P 1,911 March 30
\Vel1s v Schofleld 1898 W 87 April 4
In re ghe Sheba Queen Gold & Exploration, id 8: Co’s Acts motion
United Kingdom Tea Co, ld v Lipman 1897 U 780 April 6
Miller 8: Aldworth v Sharp 1897 M 3,845 April 6
Chadburn vBladon 1897 C 1,179 April 6
Sellarsv Dalley 1897 S 2,834 April 7
King v St Martin’s Syndicate, id 1897 K 961 April 7
Fitch v Callingham 1897 F 1,795 April 15
Smith v Rickard 1897 S 3,774 Aprii16
Nowell v Alien 1897 N 202 April 16
Wrightv Stanfield 1897 W 1,973 April 20
Turnbull v Halford 1897 T 2,116 April 25
Phcenil Metal Die & Engineering Co, ld v Bostwick Gate & Shutter Co,
ld 1898 P 366 April 26
C de Murrieta & Co, id v Mendel 1897 C 3,536 April 26
Mendess vBenjamin 1897 M 2,887 April 28
Morgan v Owens 1897 M 3,029 April 30
Sharp v Sharp 1897 S 1,337 April 30
Hinton v Whittle 1897 H 2,711 May 3
J & W Nicholson & Co, id v Keene 1897 J 2,000 May 3
Hunter v Lamb 1897 H 3,923 May 5
From Mr. J gstice Rona. 1 98. In re Crompton 8: Shawcross id & Co’s Act Expte E G Ratcliffe motn March 18
In re Parker Maughan v Clark 1897 P 2,612 March 21
Lazenby v Clinton 1898 L 119 March 21
Martin v Macarthy 1897 M 2,976 March 22
Shaw v Goldsbro 1897 S 3,632 March 22
Smith v Itothman 1898 S 513 March 23
In re Trade Marks Nos. 189,368, 193,011, 8: 193,012, Class 45, of F 8: J
Smith, & Patents, &c Acts motn March 23 Apfistollqig v The Apostoff Automatic Telephone, &c ld 1897 A 889 arc 9
In re The Gutta Percha Corpn ld & Co’s Act, 1862 motn March 29 Payton & Co 1d v Smelling, Lampard & Co ld 1898 P 2,636 March 29 Philpot v Rudham 1897 P 2_097 March 29
E ist Surrey Water Co v Taylor 1897 E 1,250 March 29
Sutton District Water Co v Taylor 1897 S 4,485 March 29
Santleyv Wilde 1897 S 4,429 March 30
Vincett v Harrison 1897 V 771 April 2
Automatic Air Tight Co, id v Hermetically Sealed Jar Syndicate, id
1897 A 915 April 4
Gillson v Seiter 1898 G 484 A ril 6
Hart v Murray 1897 H 5 April) 6
Smith v Jones & Sons, id 1897 S 2,657 April 6
Beardmore v The Interchangeable Automatic Machine Syndicate, id
1898 B 1,181 April 7
In re Bartons Bartonsvfihurch 1897 B 2,169 April 13
Lloyd v Thomas 1897 L 2,023 April 13
The Cambridge, id vHurley 1897 C 4,088 April 16
Inman v Hobbs Manufacturing Co 1897 I 2,190 April 19
Marquis of Abergavenny v Fitness 1889 A 1,008 April 20
In the Standing Committee of Law on the 15th inst., on the consideration of the London University Bill, Sir J . Gorst moved a new clause to the following effect: “ Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights or privileges of any of the Inns of Court or of the Incorporated Law Society." Upon this a considerable discussion took place, but eventually its second readmg was carried on a division by twenty-three votes to four. The clause was added to the Bill.
The Passinnrrr stated that he had received a letter from Mr. W. Winter stating that, at the request of Mr. R. M. Beachcroft, he would withdraw his nomination as a candidate.
Mr. Cass. Form (London) said that in the days of old it was the practice to send out something like a house list. \Vere they to understand, looking at the present nominations, that they were to gather who were on the house list and who were not?
The Psssinsxr: You may gather exactly what you find there.
Mr. Fonn: I am extremely obliged.
The Pnssrnsxr said there were twelve vacancies, and withdrawing Mr. Beachcroft’s name there were thirteen candidates. He asked whether any of those gentlemen desired their names to be withdrawn, and receiving no reply, stated that as the number of nominations were greater than the number of vacancies, an election by ballot would be necessary, the result of which would be announced at a general meeting to be held on Thursday, August 4. He appointed the following gentlemen to act as scrutineeis: Mr. G. A. Fisher, Mr. Kennard Hall, Mr. G. S. Macquoid, Mr. D. H. Pettitt, and Mr. A. H. Davidson.
The following are the candidates, the names of retiring members of the Council being distinguished by an asterisk: Mr. Philip Witham (Witham, Roskell, Munster, & Weld), Mr. Henry James Johnson (Waltons, Johnson, Bubb, & Whatton), ‘Mr. Grinham Keen (Keen, Rogers, & Co.), ‘Mr. William Godden (Godden, Son, 8c Holme), ‘Mr. William Melmoth Walters (\Valters, Deverell, Walters, Wood, & Walters), ‘Mr. Arthur Wightman (Broomhead, \Vightman, & Moore), Mr. Harry Wilmot Lee (Lee, Bolton, 8: Lee), ‘Mr. William Howard Winterbotham (\Vaterhouse, Winterbotham, Harrison, 8: Co.), Mr. Charles Stewart (Markby, Stewart, 8: Co.), ‘Mr. William Williams (Currie, Williams, & Williams), ‘Mr. Richard Pennington (Pennington & Sons), ‘Sir A. K. Rollit (Rollit 8: Sons), and Mr. Grantham R. Dodd.
The accounts, which shewed a total income of £35,678 15s. 4d., with an excess of income over expenditure of £5,717 13s., were laid before the meeting.
The Passrnsur moved their adoption.
The Vice-Passrnsm-, Mr. O. B. Margetts (Huntingdon), seconded the motion.
Mr. Foan said that for many years he had urged that it was unfair on the part of the Council to charge one-half of the largest items of expenditure connected with the administration of the affairs of the society to the Articled Clerks’ Fund. He Lad the satisfaction at length of finding the Council come to the conclusion that it was not a fair arrangement, but it had been a great number of years before they did so. liut he found that while £3,610 7s. 5d. was charged to the general account of “ salaries, ofiicers, clerks, and servants, and pensions,” the same amount less £100 was charged to the articled clerks’ account. He appealed to the Council that if it was not fair to charge half of the expenses under this head to the articled clerks’ account, to reduce it simply by £100 wasfar from satisfactory. lie was sorry to see also that there were several other items in the account which were charged against the articled clerks’ account. From the income side it appeared that the society had received £8,200 from the articled clerks, and notvi ithstanding that the insignificant sum of £160 was all that was given by way of prizes for the encouragement of those who were coming after them in the profession. £160 out of £8,200 for prizes for the articled clerks, not of London, but of the whole of the United Kingdom, was really miserable. He was sorry to see the item “assistant examiners and grants £3,476 4s. 3d.” He thought that the members ought to be told how small a part of that went towards grants to the provincial law societies. The profession ought to be told that it was only three or four of the most favoured law societies who could get a single penny. The majority of the provincial law societies did not get a brass sixpence. He must say that the Council might very fairly argue that if the profession allowed this state of things to go on they must not be too severe upon the Council. Remembering as he did the financial vicissitudes of the society in bygone years he was more than pleased to see that the chairman of the Executive Committee had given the society towards the expenses of the Discipline Committee £2,500. He thought this should have gone to a separate account, and that they should have been told how much of it had been expended for the purposes of discipline. He was under the impression, unless the chairman of the Finance Committee
i could tell him otherwise, that the sum was com tively so small that
it had not been thought expedient to give pBfiIC~ He observed that the president shook his head. This was encouraging and perhaps he would give the meeting some particulars. He appealed to the Council again for more generosity towards the articled clerks’ fund. lie was strongly of opinion that if the articled clerks’ account was more equitably dealt with there would bea very large sum available instead of a paltry £160. There would be at least £500 if not £1,000 to dispose of for the encouragement of articled clerks.
The PRESIDENT2 I should like to say one word in answer to what Mr. Ford has said. With reference to the apportionment of expenses to the articled clerks, that is gone into carefully with the judges, who have on repeated occasions expressed their satisfaction. It was also gone into necessarily and incidentally with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion of the Parliamentary grant, and the manner in which the Council deal with these items was declared to be satisfactory. But, as I think was explained by my predecessor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very careful, and he had an estimate made of the building and of the portions occupied by the articled clerks and of the portion occupied for other purposes, and satisfied himself very closely before he agreed to the figures. Mr. Ford asked whether the discipline expenses are in proportion to the Parliamentary grant. I am sorry to say they are in proportion very considerably in excess of the Parliamentary grant. The figures which were rendered by me to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the beginning of the year shewed that the expenses of discipline exceeded to a very considerable extent the Parliamentary grant, and we shall have to shew that each year in order that the grant may continue. As regards, again, the articled clerks’ fund and education, I think our friend Mr. Ford need not be afraid that the country law societies will not open their lips as soon as they see we are in a position to do something for them and can usefully employ the money. And this very day I have had an intimation that one of the north country law societies would like a vote of £250. We shall be only too glad if we are able to do anything useful in that direction. The discipline expenses very considerably exceed the Parliamentary grant.
The motion was carried unanimously.
which has reference to section 25 of the Act, as follows: " A Bill prepared on the instructions of the society has been introduced in the House of Commons by Sir John Lubbock, and if passed as amended in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade, will enable the court to grant relief from penalties for non-compliance with section 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, relating to contracts for the issue of fullypaid shares, recent decisions of the courts having given rise to doubts as to the sufiiciency of contracts in a form that has been generally adopted. The leading bankers and insurance companies as well as many merchants, brokers, and solicitors have signed petitions in favour of the Bill. The Bill was read a second time on the 15th of J une.” I suppose there will be scarcely a member present who does not know that within the last twelve months decisions have occurred which have shewn that the working of section 25 of the Act of 1867 has often been very unjust and that it would lead to almost innumerable lawsuits and work a great deal of hardship. That was so thrust upon the Council that they had a Bill prepared and brought in for the purpose of amending the Act, and I am happy to inform the meeting that that Bill received its third reading in the House of Commons the day before yesterday. It provides, as we think, a complete remedy for those hardships which were recently described before the special committee by Mr. Buckley as a section which had. done more injury than any. The Bill provides that the court may grant relief and will allow the filing of the contract. You will remember that supplemental contracts have been filed instead of the full contract under a general belief that it was a sufficient compliance with the Act. The Bill provides that the contract may be filed mmc pro tuna and that the court may grant relief before or after proceedings have been taken and before or after winding up. This will, we think, prove most useful if it goes through the House of Lords, as we hops it may- One other subject has been moving on since the report was issued, the
The Council has never been hostile to a teaching university for London, but looking into the terms of the Bill they thought it necessary to ask for some protection for the privileges and rights of the society and for their examinations, and especially for the system of service under articles, that our articled clerks should not be diverted from their duties in the master’s ofiicc for academical studies. It is understood that these clauses will be introduced in Grand Committee, and I think the soclety’s position will be sufliciently protected. One other Bill I may mention, and that is in relation to the Soucrrons Acrs.
The Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls desired to alter a little section 32 of the Act of 1843 and to give the Master of the Rolls power in certain cases to restore solicitors who have been struck ofi the rolls under circumstances which admitted of such an act of mercy being
W extended to them. The opportunity has been taken to amend the several
Acts of Parliament so as to give more power to the society to deal with unqualified ersons, especially in county courts. These sections, we think, will go very often of great service. The Bill has passed the House of Lords, and is now in the House of Commons. I think there is no other topic upon which I need delay the meeting. The report is now before you. The Vics-Pnssrnsxr seconded the motion.
Mr. ls‘. It. PARKER (London) said there was one part of the report with which some members of the society did not altogether agree ; he referred to the part dealing with the Long Vacation. The report stated as follows: "The resolution passed at the general meeting in J uly, 1897, that, in the opinion of this society, the duration of the Long Vacation should be reduced to eight weeks-—first Monday in August to last Saturday in September—was adopted by the Council, and was communicated to the General Council of the Bar, who passed a resolution to the effect that-it was not desirable that the suggestion of the society should be carried into effect. The reform being one that cannot be introduced without a general agreement of opinion in its favour, the Council do not see their way to proceed further in the matter at the present time.” He did not propose to raise any general debate, but simply to offer his respectful protest against the concluding sentence of the statement. He respectfully demurred from the suggestion that the bar should be entitled to stop any resolution the society might think it right in the interest of solicitors and of their clients to put forward and press. Taking merely the question of numbers, which ruled most things nowadays, he believed the solicitors were three to one to the bar--that was to say, that in England there were somewhere about 15,000 solicitors and 5,000 barristers. Therefore, taking the purely radical view that numbers were to count, he said that the bar were not in the position to veto anything that the society determined. The report stated that the reform could not be introduced without a general agreement of opinion in its favour. He did not think that was within the meaning of the resolution. He thought it had been put forward and argued as a reform needful in their own interests as solicitors and one which was dfirlléd. by that branch of their clients who were suitors in the courts. He certainly, therefore, found a difficulty in suppprting the resolution as far as this part of the report was concerned. he paragraph concluded with the words “ the Council do not see their way to proceed further in the matter at the present time.” In other words, the Council had pigeon-holed the question. He offered his protest against that. The quest-ion had been challenged over and over again both in London and the provinces and the Council should have done their utmost to carry out actively the wishes of themselves and of the profession. He did not think they should quietly allow themselves to be pigeon-holed in this matter, and he objected as a member of the society andas an independent solicitor to being under the dictation of the bar in this. He urged that the Council should consider the expediency of pressing this question by every means in their power, by bringing it before the public, by agitating in Parliament, and that they would not allow any minority however influential to stop the full exercise of the resolution which had been passed. The members, each and all of them, did what little lay in their power to carry forward any question which afiected the profession at large, especially upon which a pronounced opinion had been formed, and he therefore offered his contribution to the further elucidation of the subject. On another matter not mentioned in the report they had at least one member of the bench, and that an active one and one who took strong views, who was in their favour—l\[r. Justice Wright. A select committee of the House of Commons had been sitting on the procedure in election petitions. Before that committee Mr. Justice \Vright had appeared and he was asked whether the trial of these ‘petitions could not be proceeded with during the Long Vacation? Mr. ustice Wright answered in the way they considered right. He said he saw no objection, and he believed, speaking as a judge, that the judges would be willing to exchange the holidays they had perforce to take in the Long Vacation for some other part of the year. They were told that the judges did not favour this amendment, but he had urged over and over again that many oi the judges would gladly exchange this enforced holiday in August and September. lie (Mr. Parker; had also attended before the committee, and had as far as possible supported the need of a reform in the Long Vacation.
Mr. Foan wished to move an amendment. Ho said he entirely endorsed the remarks of Mr. Parker. lle moved that the report be received with the exception of that part referring to the Long Vacation. He knew that the amendment would not be carried, but he would move it as a protest. These meetings were called for two o’clock; no more inconvenient hour could be found, except for the members of the club, who could attend and carry anything they thought fit. There was a member of the Council who was much more useful to the society before he was elected to that position who was the author of the proposal that the Long Vacation should be reduced to two months. He (Mr. Ford) thought that was two months longer than it ought to be. But he hoped Mr. lliunton would speak out upon the matter. This was a very milk-and-water paragraph in which the Council did not see their way to proceeding further with the matter. That was a stereotyped expression which could be found in tho reports for the last thirty years. And that was the effect of some of the most important proposals by way of reform ever advocated in that hall, and they, poor miserable fellows! were to fold their arms and say nothing more. They were there to represent the interests of the public. If the bar were content to represent their own intereits that was their affair, but it was not a position which the members of the society would ever assist in. In the interest of the suitors in the courts there was no member of_the Council _or of the society who would stand up and say that the courts ought to be closed from the 10th of August to the 24th of October. lie
asked the meeting to demur to the attitude of the Council in saying they could do nothing more to shorten the Long Vacation. Was it fair to their clients that they should be shut out from getting justice administered for a longer period than two mouths?
Mr. E. FITZGERALD (London) seconded the amendment.
Mr. F. K. MUNTON (London) said that as Mr. Ford had alluded to his
attitude, perhaps it was right that he should make a few observations. Mr. Ford seemed to have been under the impression that because one member of the Council, after consulting his colleagues, had moved s resolution which he believed, on the whole, would recommend itself, the mover was in some degree responsible for the ultimate result. Those who had studied the question knew perfectly well that in the general meetings and elsewhere there was a very divided opinion. Some were in favour of retaining the vacation exactly as it was at present. Some, like Mr. Ford, were for abolishing it altogether. Others were in favour of certain further business being done during the Long Vacation, and there were varying views all along the line. The ditficulty had been to reconcile these views as far as possible and to get some kind of resolution passed at a general meeting which the Council would feel themselves justified in putting forward. The Council adopted the resolution, and they had loyalty endeavoured to make progress. It was said by Mr. Parker that because the bar were numerically less than solicitors comparatively little notice should be taken of the bar opposition. But the law society must not only piss resolutions, they must be practical. They must look at_ the difficulties which were before them. All that the Council could possibly do at present they had done. In his opinion a very long time would elapse before they would succeed in getting exactly all that had been asked. It might be that the Council, if requested, could take some further step by way_of showing their continued loyalty to the general meeting, but it was quite impossible to bring the question to a successful issue so easily as some of the members imagined. There were many conflicting authorities to deal with, and if it were proposed they should do something more at the present time, let a resolution be framed of a practical character, in which event he had no doubt that the Council would do all that they could to carry it into effect.
lllr. R. Pa'si\'ii~:cr0iv (London) thought 0. better form of amendment would be to propose that the resolution should be sent to the Lord Chancellor. The bar had not received the suggestion favourably, but that was no reason why the solicitors should not go to the of the profession and tell him what they thought and_ what they wished. He could not see any harm in such a step. He did not suppose any good would follow, but he thought it was the duty of the Counc_ to do so if the society wished it. If Mr. Ford's amendment were put in that form he would support it. _ _
Mr. PARKER, referring to the_ remarks of Mr. Munton, said that his contention was that the Council had not done all they ought_to have done. Mr. Munton said they had done everything that was possible.
Mr. Fosn : They have not even sent the resolution to the Lord Chancellor. _ _
Mr. PARKER said that was so. He asked Mr. Ford to withdraw_ his amendment. He could not support it for the reason Mr: Ford had given —namely, that it would not be carriecl—and he was quite sure that the remarks which had been made would have the full consideration of the Council. He would prefer Mr. Pennington's suggested amendment.
Mr. Gnu HILL ( iverpool), speaking as a country member_of the Council, said he had been associated with Mr. Munton in supporting the resolution as to the Long Vacation which was regarded at the time as a compromise. He thought it was a great pity that the Council should say anything which would hamper their action hereafter in supporting this resolution, although as a member of the Council he was to ii certain extent bound by the report, if it should be considered desirable to 8° further. Mr. Munton had very properly said that there was a great difierence of opinion on the matter, and that was very naturally reflected in the Council. The real way to accomplish something was for those who believed in the desirability and the necessity of shortening the Long Vacation to convert those who were doubtful or hesitating or of a contrary opinion. Then they would be able to bring power to bear upon the Council to set them to work. Again, what he thought might be WY! properly objected to on the part of Mr. Ford or of any other membtf was the concluding words of the paragraph, and if Mr. Ford would confine his amendment to omitting those words he would be very hapPY to support it.
Mr. Foan expressed his agreement with the suggestion. _
Mr. E. Kiinisa (London) supported what had fallen from Mr. Pannington. It was all very well for the members of the society to met w_1ll1 the objection which Mr. Pennington brought forward, that he did not think any good would come from moving in the matter. That was scarcely treating the Lord Chancellor fairly. He believed the Lord Chancelkl was open to reason like the rest of people. In fact he believed till" more than others the Lord Chancellor was open to the_ pres!!!" of public opinion. It could not be denied that the society _ WT)’ much more than the Bar Council represented public _ opinion. They had heard to-day for the first time that the society hid received a public grant of £2,500. If anything would impose upon them the obligation of representing the public interest, that grant, small as ll was, would do sn. They were bound, therefore, notronly in the interoqli of their clients, but in the interests of the public generally, to give vowfl to public opinion. \Vhat was the opinion of the clients upon the sul>J¢°'5 worth ‘E It was worth absolutely nothing unless it was expressed throilfih the mouth of their solicitors, and the members of the society were there for the urposo of expressing it. Did they mean to say that the lflld Chancellor would not be subject to the expression of ophiions of that chat" aoter? He believed he would, and the proper constitutional course Wl"
for the Council to wait upon the Lord Chancellor, first sending out a notice to every member of the society as to when the deputation would be received and asking as many of the members as could to attend it.
Mr. W‘. Msnuoru \Vsi.-rims (London) thought there was no occasion for the amendment. He thought the words used in the report had been misconstrued. It merely meant this : at the present moment the Council did not see their way to proceed further. He looked at it from this point of view : the question as to shortening or abolishing the Long Vacation was one which was by no means ripe. There were almost as many opinions as there were classes of people interested, and the society could not effect anything by their own vote. If they had to carry it in the teeth of the bar and the judges, an Act of Parliament would be necessary. Where were they there? There were 23 representatives of the solicitor branch of the profession in the House of Commons against 180 barristers. It was perfectly ridiculous on the face of it. The only chance was to educate public opinion to get pressure brought to bear from time to time in the right quarter to get the alteration carried. They would never get it by bullying or blustering or blackguarding the bar. If Mr. Ford would only make his amendment on these lines the Council would lose no occasion of pressing the matter forward upon the authorities whenever they had the opportunity.
Mr. BARUCH Conan (London) said that Mr. Walters’ speech appeared to confirm the opinion that the last words should be lcft out, for the reason that there was not only suggested that there was a misapprehension as to their meaning, and the obvious meaning would be that the society was not qualified or justified in urging its views because the Bar Council had differed from it. He did not think it would be the wish of any member of the solicitor branch of the profession to blackguard or bluster at the bar. But there was a very wide distinction between blackguarding and blustering and swallowing the statement that because there might be a difference of opinion between the Bar Council and the Council of the society that the Council were to bind the hands of the society and say they did not see their way to pursue a certain course.
Mr. WALTBR8 : At the present moment.
Mr. COHRN : Or at any other moment.
t_ Mr; Wanransz It does not say so. It lays, “ At the present ime.
Mr. COHEN said it did not matter whether it was present time or any other time. What he suggested was that because there was a difference between the Council of this society and the Bar Council it did not follow that even at the present time the Council should not pursue the course it had entered upon. He felt all the more bound to say this because he did not at all sympathize with Mr. Parker and Mr. Ford in their original desire to abridge the Long Vacation. He was one of those who supported the Long Vacation, although the two months’ period seemed a very reasonab e time. Nevertheless, when it came to swallowing the statement that when the bar differed from the solicitors the solicitors were barred from continuing upon a course upon which they had decided he saw the greatest danger to the solicitor branch of the profession. He welcomed therefore Mr. Pennington's suggestion, because it would be very unfortunate if the society did nothing. It would apipear to be accepting the snub to the Council. If the society was to a mit by its report that its hands should be tied every time it came into conflict with the Bar Council it would render itself powerless. He urged the meeting to confirm the society’s independence.
Mr. E. K. BLYTH (London) hoped‘ the debate would not pass off on a side issue upon any question of antagonism or jealousy between the society and the bar. Mr. Ford’s amendment simply expressed the same thing as Mr Walters’ remarks—namely, that the profession dfilllrd to request the Council to do everything possible from time to time to advance this reform. He hoped the meeting would understand that that was the broad issue, and that if they supported the amendment they would be simply doing so with the view of strengthening the Council in any action they might take. The report simply meant that the Council could not take action at present, but it did not shut them out from doing so in the future. He did not think it was worth while discussing a question of mere verbiage.
The Paasinsnr: The Council is very much in agreement with what has fallen from Mr. Cohen. You will notice that in the paragraph itis stated that the resolution was adopted by the Council. Therefore there is no doubt we are all agreed upon that subject, and as I understand Mr. Ford’s amendment it is that the final sentence of the paragraph shall be omitted, and under these circumstances the Council will very readily pass on the resolution to the Lord Chancellor.
The amendment was then adopted.
Busmsss in riiii Cnsxciinr DIVISION.
Mr. Kniniin objected that there was no reference in the report to the state of business in the Chancery Division. Everybody had commented upon the matter, the newspapers had done so, and complaints had been made to the House of Commons, and we were told that it was utterly useless to make any further complaint because the Government would not appoint more judges. That was no reason why they should cease their advocacy of and agitation upon the subject. They were there to record their judgment upon the question every year until a remedy was found. It was perfectly useless to expect the House of Commons or the public to understand this unless the solicitors continually kept before them the position of the question. The position was that in the beginning of this Trinity Sessions there were 617 causes, adjourned summonses for further consideration, waiting to be hrard by five judges. And the state of business at the present time was that they had heard about half that number, and the chances were that in consequence of the pressure of other business fully one-half would be remanm until the next sittings, com
mencing in October. Was that a satisfactory state of things? How many litigants had been suffering during the whole year? Only in the last ten days or a fortnight the judges had been hearing causes which had been set down in December and January. VVas it fair that the suitor should have to wait six months after a cause was set down? When one mentioned it to members of the House of Commons they said, “If I bring it up in the House of Commons there is sure to be Mr. Pickersgill or some other member, or even her liIajesty’s Government, seeking to propose an additional judge in Chancery. I shall object to the whole thing, call up the whole system of administration, and ask for inquiry as to how many days some of the judges have absented themselves at Newmarket or other places.” He asserted that there was not a single judge who absented himself from his public duties for the purpose of taking pleasure when he ought to be in court. But supposing they absented themselves for one or two days what effect would that have on an arrear of 600 causes? Since these 600 were set down no less than 146 causes had been set down to be heard up till to-day, so that the chances were that when the Michaelmas sittings commenced there would be an arrear of over 700 causes waiting to be heard, one-half of which were set down to be heard that February. What was the objection to the appointment of an extra judge? The only thing he had heard on the part of the society was that some of the members of the Council might get the post of masters under the new judge. If such an interested motive could be imputed to the Council, how much more could interested motives be imputed to the senior members of the bar, whose pastures would be somewhat diminished and who would be scattered abroad by the addition of a fresh court? But that was not the question. The question was whether a suitor going into the High Court in the Chancery Division was to have his cause delayed and often an actual denial of justice brought about. If the society had to go before the Lord Chancellor with regard to the Long Vacation they might very well strengthen his hands as to the appointment of additional judges. To deal with the causes as they were set down would require the addition of two judges. It was high time that this abominable system was brought to the notice of the authorities. Mr. Foiu) referred to the paragraph dealing with
in the re ort as follows : “ During the past year five solicitors, who were convicted) of various criminal offences, have, on the application of the society, been struck off the roll. Orders for attachment have been obtained against two unqualified persons for acting as solicitors, and two other cases are now pending before the court. Convictions under section 12 of the Solicitors Act, 1874, have been obtained against ten unqualified persons, including solicitors without practising certificates, and in others proceedings have been abandoned on payment of costs by the defendants.” He observed that the proportions seemed somewhat remarkable. With regard to LEGAL EDUCATION
his view was that the system in vogue under the society was not a desirable one inasmuch as it was nothing but a system of coaches and the determination that nothing should interfere with the revenues of the society. He thought that if they were wise they would lend themselves to the establishment of a teaching university. The report said with regard to the University Commission Bill “ that the Council adhere to the views expressed in the evidence of Mr. B. G. Lake in 1888, and of Mr. Pennington in 1892, to the effect that mere theoretical and academical teaching in law should not qualify a person for admission as a solicitor; that a university degree alone without service under articles could not be accepted as a qualification to practise ; and that the society ought not to part with the control of the examination of persons prior to their admission as solicitors.” He (Mr. Ford) had also given evidence before that commission which was entirely opposed to the evidence of Mr. Lake. He regretted that the Council had not thought fit to deal with the clauses
of the COMPANIES Acrs
which dealt with voluntary liquidations. Although there were gigantic frauds by moneylenders they were in no way equal to the frauds upon the public in connection with voluntary liquidations. The way in which these people were bled was abominable, and the system lent itself to all sorts of unworthy actions. If the proceedings were compulsorily disclosed as was the case with compulsory liquidations the public would greatly benefit. He entirely agreed with Mr. Kimber‘s remarks as to the delay in the Chancery Division. It was the way to make the whole procedure in the Court of Chancery utterly unpopular. _ Mr. CLARENCE HARCOUBT (London) referred to the subject of
Couxrr Covnrs. He said that a resolution had been passed by the County Court Committee
which had been practically adopted by the Council to the effect that in.
future every plaintiff should have the right to have an action for breach of promise, libel, or slander, where the damages claimed did not exceed £100, tried in the county court. As things stood at the present time these actions could not be brought in the county court. He ventured to say there was no class of action which was subject to such abuse as actions for slander and libel, and to give to the county court, with a jury composed perhaps of five sinall tradesmen, power to decide such_ questions, which might be most vital to a man's honour, was, in his opinion, most undesirable. It was admitted that the business in the Queen's Bench Division was in an eminently satisfactory condition. \Vhy, then, should they refer important actions to a tribunal originally established for the ‘recovery of small debts ? He heard Mr. lliunton some years_ ago deliver a most interesting address on the question of the extension of county court
jurisdiction, and he made a most excellent speech in the direction now advocated. He ventured to think that Mr. Munton did not at that time think that things would go so far. If the suggestion were put forward by the Council and was taken up by the press and carried through, solicitors individually and their clients would be depriving themselves of one of the rights they at present enjoyed—namely, the right to have actions of this class tried in the High Court.
Mr. Psnxau said that the delay in Chancery proceedings was due to the inherent defects in the procedure which required reform. It was answerable for a great deal of the delay. At the same time they might go from_ one extreme to the other. In the Queen's Bench Division there was serious
Dsnosn or CUBTAILING Paocanuns
too much. If the procedure in Chancery required curtailing it did not need it to the extent adopted in the Queen’s Bench. The Commercial court was a most breathless court. A plaintifi could not even issue a writ unless he was ready to go to trial. It was much too rapid. The Chancery procedure was not wholly open to the censure passed upon it by Mr.
’imber, for many an action could be tried on a short motion and could be disposed of.
Mr. R. W. DlliDlN (London) did not agree that the procedure was responsible for the delay. Procedure was at an end when the action was set down. What Mr. Kimber complained of very justly was that when everybody was ready they had to wait six or nine months or more before the cause could be heard.
Mr. Mvnrox, in reply to the remarks of Mr. Harcourt, said that a very strong committee, nearly thirty in number, had after much consideration come to the conclusion that actions for libel, slander, and breach of promise of marriage where the damages claimed did not exceed £100 might very fairly go to the county court. It had been often said that a very large part of the time of the High Court was taken up in trying small issues, and it was thought better under all the circumstances that it should be recommended that these should be remitted to the county court. With regard to the paper to which Mr. Harcourt referred, and which was read by him (Mr. Munton) nearly twenty years ago, it was to the effect that county courts as they gradually ap roached the work of the High Court might well be made branches of the latter. He adhered to that opinion and should the members express a desire to have the question discussed again he would take care that it should have a hearing on whichever side of the table he should be sitting.
Mr. Conan agreed with Mr. Munton with regard to the necessity of enlarging coimty court jurisdiction. There were constantly breach of promise actions in the High Court and actions for libel and slander which were of a very trivial kind. Very often, nowadays, a solicitor felt that he could not bring an action because the damages he could claim were so trifling that he was not justified in taking up the time of the High Court judge and jury and of submitting himself to the snubbing he might receive. Therefore he wished every success to the proposition to extend the county court jurisdiction as suggested. But the question of a small increase of the costs to be allowed to the practitioner should be considered. The extended jurisdiction would ease the block in the Chancery Division, which would fade away without the necessity of appointing new judges. The subject of the Queen's Bench Division was a far more serious matter, because although in the Chancery Division justice was delayed, it was obtained eventually. This was not so in the Q,ueen’s Bench Division, for often when the action came on for trial counsel was unable to attend. A list should be published so many days before the hearing, and one should be able to ind one’s counsel to attend. More injustice was done to-day because counsel did not attend than from any other cause. That was what disgusted the public with the trial of causes and made many refrain from going to law, because they say, “ We pay big sums to counsel, and they do not attend .” This was a question upon which the bar and solicitors must be at variance. It touched the pockets of the bar, but it aflected the solicitors to a considerable extent and the public beyond measure.
Mr. GRINHAM KERN (London) observed that the report stated with regard to county courts that “ the committee have still under consideration a scale of costs, which may be recommended if a suitable opportunity arises.” lle said the committee had given most careful consideration to the scale, and had a draft scale of county court costs they had prepared which they believed would meet the reasonable requirements of the profession if it should be carried through. He had sat upon the committee and knew what was being done. The members of the committee had devoted themselves to the subject in a most exemplary way, and the work had been very hard.
The PRESIDBNTZ With reference to Mr. Kimber’s and Mr. Cohen’s remarks it may be useful if the Legal Procedure Committee, which deals with such subjects, were to endeavour to obtain some statistics as to the number of cases from time to time so as to strengthen the hands of the authorities in the way Mr. Kimber desires. Mr. Ford referred to a teaching university. I have already said the society is by no means hostile to the project, and would like to see it carried out. A report of the Examination Committee was adopted b the Council on the 8th inst., too late to bc circulated with the report, and, it contains some useful information on the subject of a teaching university. Any member of the society can obtain a copy by applying to the secretary. The report of the Parliamentary Committee on Money-lending has also been published within the last few days, and to a large extent it adopts the suggestions which were made in the report which we sent to the chairman of the committee. You will notice in our report one little success we have obtained, and that is the expunging from the Taxes Management Act of
the section prohibiting any party to appeals before Commissioners of
It the House of Commons, on the 15th inst., Captain Pretyman asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the extreme inconvenience caused by the present uncertainty as to whether estate duty would be payable upon interests which had been alienated during lifetime, there was any probability that the hearingxof the appeal in the Beach case before the House of Lords would be ed for an early date. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said 2 Of course it does not rest with me to fix the date of the hearing of this case. I do not suppose it is likely to be heard before the November sittings; but certainly the Crown would desire that the matter should be decided as soon as possible. Mr. James Lowt-her asked whether the right hon. gentleman could say whether in the meantime any attempt would be made ti levy the duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it had already been stated that the duty would be levied in every case, but that notice would be given to those who had to pay that the duty so levied would be returned if the House of Lords decided against the Exchequer.
In the House of Cimmons on the 18th inst. Mr. Geige asked the Chaucellor of the Exchequer it his attention had been drawn to the following case : A. B. died in January last, leaving a large sum of money to his nephew, C. D., on his attaining the age of twenty-one (which he will do in October), but in the event of his dying under age the money is to go to three other rsons, the share of one of those persons being directed to be settled. Eztate duty on A. B.’s death is being paid. If C. D. lives to October next no part of the money will be settled, and if he dies in November estate duty will be again paid on the whole sum; but the Controller of Inland Revenue has claimed settlement estate duty also in respect of one-third of the amount, on the ground that it iacontingently settled; and whether, in view of the fact that the injustice of this claim had been recognized by him, and prevented in the cases of persons dying after the 1st of July, the day on which the Finance Act, 1898, commenced, he would give directions that the claim should not be enforced in such cases. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said: Section 1-1.of the Finance Act of this year was intended to meet cases such as that put by the hon. member. But it applies only in the case of deaths occurring after the commencement of the Act, and I cannot give directions which would make it retrospective.
At the Dolgelly Assizes last week, before Mr. Justice Wills, says the Times, the case of Evans v. Simner was tried by the learned judge without a jury. The plaintiffs claim was for £575, the value of 460 Welsh mountain sheep. The evidence disclosed the fact that these small sheep have a much higher value as a flock on the mountains than when sold at a fair. The plaintiff was tenant of a farm called Brynmeurig, near Arthog, and was given notice by Miss Simner, the defendant, t/0 quit in March last. One of the conditions of his tenancy was that on the expiration of it by notice, or otherwise, the flock of sheep was to be taken over by valuation either by the incoming tenant or by the landlord. The value of the sheep was fixed by the arbitrators at 25s. a head, and it was admitted that in a fair 16s. a head would have been a good price for them. From the evidence it appeared that upon this farm, as upon all Welsh mountain farms, there are no fences on t e sheepmwalks, and that the sheep bred upon a particular run know their own undaries and keep to them, that it takes them from three to four years to become thoroughly settled on the run, and that sheep bred on tho run thrive much better than fresh ones brought on from another farm. Shepherds are almost unknown on the Welsh hills, one man looking after the flocks on several farms. His lordship held that the price as fixed by the arbitrators was a reasonable one, and that the custom to place an enhanced value on a flock of sheep thoroughly established on a farm and sheep run was also a reasonable one.
The Clitheroe Estate Co. (Limited) has been formed, with a nomina_l share capital of 20,000 4} per cent. cumulative preference shares of £a each, and 100,000 ordinary shares of £1 each. The property of the company consists of the Clitheroe Estate, in the county of Lancaster. The bulk of the income is derived from rent-s and royalties paid by lessees of the coal mines and of the stone and other quarries, brick and shale works,