Page images
PDF
EPUB

Courts Act, 1888. It requires the parties to sign, in the presence of the registrar, or of one of his clerks, or of a solicitor, a statement embodying the agreed terms of settlement, and provides, that thereupon judgment for the plaintiff, in accordance with such statement, shall be entered up, which judgment shall, to all intents and purposes, be the same, and have the same effect, and be enforced and enforceable in the same manner, as if it had been a judgment of the judge of the county court.

Is IT evidence of insanity in a testator that he believes himself to have been the recipient of direct Divine commands as to the disposition he should make of his property? The House of Lords in Hope v. Campbell have answered this question in the affirmative. The late Mr. JOHN HOPE was at once a successful Scotch lawyer and a strong advocate of total abstinence and of Protestantism. His law was necessarily confined to this world, but he wished to perpetuate his efforts on behalf of his favourite principles by making provision for their advancement after his death. By his testamentary trusts he directed his trustees to expend from £1,000 to £1,500 a year on these objects. In an action brought to set aside the trusts it was alleged that they were created "in consequence of commands which he conceived he had received from the Deity by direct communication on various occasions," and that by reason of "these insane delusions" Mr. HOPE was incapable of making his will. The Scotch courts rejected the allegation, but in the House of Lords Lords WATSON and SHAND (Lord DAVEY diss.) have allowed it. It is unfortunate that the House was so small; it would have been interesting to have had the views of some other English law lords on the point. But it is merely a matter of pleading, and, even if the allegation is proved, it does not follow that the trusts will be upset. As Lord DAVEY remarked, delusions such as those alleged against Mr. HOPE have been shared by some of the greatest benefactors of mankind; and, in themselves, they hardly go far to prove insanity.

DAMAGE FROM ESCAPE OF WATER. An interesting decision upon the liability of a landlord in respect of an escape of water was given by a Divisional Court (WRIGHT and DARLING, JJ.) in the recent case of Blake & Co. v. Woolf (ante, p. 688). The defendant was the owner of premises in the City, and the plaintiffs were tenants under him of the basement and ground-floor. The water for the whole house was supplied from a cistern at the top of the premises, which apparently was under the defendant's control; and the plaintiffs entered upon their tenancy after the water was laid on, and used the supply from the cistern. On a Friday the plaintiffs discovered that there was a leakage of water from the cistern, and they at once gave notice to the defendant, and requested him to have the matter put right. The defendant, on receipt of the notice, employed a plumber to repair the leakage, but the plumber did his work so negligently that the leakage became worse; and when the premises were opened on the following Monday the plaintiffs found their rooms flooded and their goods damaged. They brought an action in the City of London Court, and obtained a declaration of the landlord's liability, the amount of the damages being left to be assessed subsequently; but in the Divisional Court this result has been reversed, and the landlord is absolved from the consequences of the plumber's negligence. In such cases it is not, as a rule, possible to rely upon the contractual relation of landlord and tenant. The rule that the landlord is not bound to keep the demised premises in repair applies, notwithstanding that the tenant has taken only part of an unfurnished house and the landlord retains control of the rest. It has been even said that a landlord who lets the lower part of a house is under no obligation to repair the roof. The opposite, indeed, was stated by RAINSFORD, J., to be the law in Pomfret v. Ricroft (1 Wms. Saund. 557), but the notes to that case treat the lessor as not liable, and this view has been accepted as correct (see Carstairs v. Taylor, L. R. 6 Ex., p. 223). On the other hand, in the case of a common staircase to a building let out in flats it has been held that the duty of repair is cast upon the land

lord (Miller v. Hancock, 1893, 2 Q. B. 177), and upon principle it would be difficult to absolve him from liability also for any repairs which are essential for the convenience and safety of the building as a whole. Possibly it will be found that this last decision has undermined the authority of the note in SAUNDERS. But as a rule it is not safe to assume that the landlord undertakes any liability to repair, except such as may be cast upon him by the express terms of the tenancy.

In the case of water stored at the top of a house, the attempt is sometimes made to set up the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher (L. R. 3 H. L. 330) on behalf of the tenant on a lower floor who is injured by its escape, and to treat the water as a dangerous thing brought upon the premises by the landlord which he must keep in at his own peril. The rule of law, it was laid down in that case, is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. But the rule is not absolute-the defendant, for instance, can excuse himself by showing that the escape was the consequence of vis major-and there are special considerations applicable to the case of water stored in an ordinary cistern which have hitherto prevented the rule from being used with success against the landlord of a house.

In Carstairs v. Taylor (L. R. 6 Ex. 217) the landlord succeeded on the ground that the escape of the water was due to vis major-in plain English, to a rat. The landlord occupied the upper part of a warehouse himself and let the ground-floor to tenants. The water from the roof was collected by gutters into a box, and thence discharged by a pipe into the drains. A hole was made in the box by a rat, and the water entered the warehouse and damaged the tenants' goods. It appeared that the landlord was not guilty of negligence, as the box was constructed in the mode ordinarily used in the neighbourhood, and the roof was periodically examined. The incursion of the rat was an accident which the landlord did not foresee, and against which he was not bound to provide. But the judgments in the case also suggest another ground upon which the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was inapplicable. That rule assumes that the defendant brings the water upon his premises for his own purposes only. In Carstairs v. Taylor the roof was for the common protection of both landlord and tenant, and the collection of water running from it was also for their joint benefit. "The plaintiffs," said BRAMWELL, B., "must be taken to have consented to this collection of water which was for their own benefit, and the defendant can only be liable if he was guilty of negligence." The reason thus suggested for excluding the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher applies equally to the case of water brought into a house for the common use of the occupants, and in Ross v. Fedden (L. R. 7 Q. B. 661) it was further pointed out that the flow of water through a house is to be treated as the natural state of things-at any rate, if it exists when the tenancy commences. The flow of water through cisterns and pipes then in operation is equivalent to the natural flow of water.

Such being the view which has prevailed, it would obviously have been difficult to make the landlord liable in the present case of Blake & Co. v. Woolf. The doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher must be taken to be excluded both upon the ground that the water was brought upon the premises for the use of the plaintiffs in common with the other occupants of the premises, and that the flow of water through the house was part of the natural state of things. In other words, the landlord, in permitting such flow to exist, was doing no more than using the premises in an ordinary and reasonable manner. He was under no liability, therefore, to guarantee the tenants against damage in consequence of an escape of water, and, as they did not set up any contractual liability, he could only have been liable in the event of negligence. But the negligence which was proved was the negligence not of the landlord or of his servants, of an independent contractor, and for the consequences of this the landlord was not liable. So far as the decided cases have gone, the tenant of a part of premises must run the risk of damage through any accidental defect in the supply of water.

but

THE LAND TRANSFER RULES.
XIII. (CONCLUSION).

Part V-Miscellaneous.-Maps and verbal descriptions of land.Rules 199 to 211 seem to leave nothing to be desired as regards the delineation and description of registered land. After a long conflict the right to use a verbal description in aid of the plan has been secured (see the Act of 1897, s. 14), though necessarily the verbal particulars must be first submitted to the registrar (rule 207). It will be observed that unless the boundaries are expressly defined (rules 201-3), in which case notices to the adjoining owners are required, the exact line is left undetermined. This is in accordance with the existing practice, but it will not enable small alterations in the boundary to be effected without cross transfers with any safety (see Act of 1897, s. 12).

Inspection, searches, and copies of the register.-The provisions (rules 212-20) are amply sufficient to secure the secrecy of the register without being unreasonably strict. Why, however, any distinction (rule 220) is drawn between the first year after removal of land from the register, and afterwards, is by no means clear, unless we are to assume that the rule is aimed at discouraging the removal of land from the register. If this be the reason, we submit that it is wrong in principle. For the Legislature having now conferred a power (Act of 1897, s. 17 of removal except in compulsory districts, the rules should do everything to facilitate the exercise of that power.

The remaining rules we have commented on in the course of these articles, and we will now proceed to give a short summary of the matters in respect of which we conceive the rules might, with advantage, be amended.

Summary of suggested amendments :

(1) Tenant by the curtesy.-Rule 7 should apply only to a right to dower (ante, pp. 446, 667).

(2) Right of consolidation.-Rule 112 should shew that the reservation of the right is not to operate until something is done by the chargee to exercise the right (ante, p. 446).

(3) Registration of executor without probate.-Rule 126 should provide that probate is to be produced within a limited time (ante, p. 446).

(4) Restrictions, &c., where tenant for life is registered.-The forms of these restrictions and inhibitions require amendment (ante, pp. 446, 520, 589, 631-2).

(5) Transfers to the uses of a settlement. These forms also quire amendment (ante, pp. 447, 589).

whereas he ought to have an estate paramount to the fee conferred by registration. The rule should, we think, be amended so as to provide that the disposition should have the same effect as if the land had not been situated in a compulsory district (ante, p. 551).

suggested amendments is so short speaks for the thoroughness That this list (which does not profess to be exhaustive) of and ability of the Rule Committee; but, of course, the list does not in any way represent the objections which may properly be taken to the Land Transfer Acts. Nothing short of a repeal and re-enactment of those Acts in technical language will ever secure a fair chance for the system proposed to be established.

REVIEWS.

BOOKS RECEIVED.

The Law of the Press. A Digest of the Law affecting Newspapers in England, India, and the Colonies. By JOSEPH R. FISHER, B.A., Barrister-at-Law, and J. ANDREW STRAHAN, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. William Clowes & Sons (Limited). Handbook on the Licensing Acts and their Administration. By ALFRED T. DAVIES, Solicitor and Notary Public; Cursitor of the Third Edition. Macmillan & Co. County Palatine of Lancaster. (Limited).

The Law Magazine and Review, August, 1898. William Clowes & Sons (Limited).

CORRESPONDENCE.

MR. HOOLEY'S EXAMINATION.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir, Mr. Hooley, in his examination yesterday, is reported to getting our names on the prospectus of Schweppes (Limited), a fee of have said that he thought he had paid to us, for the purpose of £1,000, for which we did no professional work. The statement, if correctly reported, is untrue.

We never had

We, as solicitors for the Law Debenture Corporation (Limited) (which was trustee for the debenture stock holders), were instructed to investigate the title to the various properties and water rights (fourteen in number), to prepare and complete the trust-deed, and to see that the issue of stock was validly made. any direct communication with Mr. Hooley, who was represented by his solicitors, Messrs. Ashwell & Tutin. Our first instructions were re-received on the 15th of April, 1897-the trust-deed was completed on the 28th of July, 1897-but the work of adjudicating the deeds for stamp duties and completing the conveyance of the Australian properties was not completed until February, 1898. Our costs, including disbursements other than stamp duties, amounted to £234 178. 6d., which is less than the scale authorized by the Solicitors' on the 16th of Remuneration Act, 1881, and an account was December, 1897, submitted to Messrs. Leonard & Pilditch, the solicitors for Schweppes (Limited).

(6) No rules for valuation of property of deceased person for purposes of Act of 1897, s. 4.-These rules remain to be prescribed; rule 255 appears only to relate to registered land (ante, p. 486).

(7) No power to issue new certificate on foreclosure.-Rule 107 should give this power (ante, pp. 486, 608). And rule 197 requires verbal amendment (ante, p. 684).

(8) Legal estate.-Where it is got in by a registered proprietor the rules should provide that it is to be extinguished in the statutory estate. Where an incumbrance entered on the register is discharged, the rules should provide that the discharge of the incumbrance is ipso facto to destroy any legal estate held by the incumbrancer (ante, pp. 505, 569, 647, 681-2).

(9) Caution against registration of land.-Form No. 12 requires amendment (ante, p. 550).

(10) Persons in fiduciary position.-The rules should free such persons from liability in respect of an investment on a registered charge (ante, p. 608).

(11) Power for registrar to inhibit mortgage by deposit.-The rules should confer this power (ante, pp. 631-2, 664).

(12) Covenants for title.-These should apply to matters within section 18 of the Act of 1875 as amended (ante, p. 651). (13) Notices of leases.-In each form of a registered charge a stipulation should be implied, unless there is an entry to the contrary, to give effect to mortgagors' leases (ante, p. 667).

(14) Conveyance and mortgage prior to compulsory registration.Rule 77 is not aptly framed to carry out its object, as it provides that the disposition is to have the same effect as if it had been executed subsequently to the registration of the purchaser, which seems to relegate the disposition by the purchaser to the place of an unregistered disposition made after first registration,

Debenture Corporation in order to pay the stamp duties on the trust£1,000 was, on the completion of trust-deed, handed to the Law deeds and conveyances. A list of the payments for these duties-which amounted to £830-was on the 20th December, 1897, sent to Messrs, Leonard & Pilditch, and with their sanction the balance of £170 was applied towards payment of our costs. On the 16th of February, 1898, Messrs. Leonard & Pilditch sent us Mr. Hooley's cheque for the balance of £84 178. 6d.

No fee was received by the Law Debenture Corporation for consenting to act as trustee or for allowing its name to appear on the prospectus. Its remuneration is by an annual payment which is made by the company and secured by the trust-deed.

10, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C., Aug. 2.

LAKE & LAKE.

THE LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-By the will of A (who died in 1886) the X freehold estate, of which he held the fee simple, was devised to B (who died in March last) for life, with remainder over. The point is whether B's executor or administrator is real representative of B within the meaning of section 1 of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, for the purpose of the X estate, as, if so, his assent is necessary to the vesting of the remainder. in practice will write to you about their experience, as it is a matter Perhaps some of your readers who have met with similar instances of interest to the profession?

"EXPERIENTIA DOCET."

THE NECESSITY FOR LIFTS AT THE ROYAL COURTS.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir,-On Saturday morning, when mounting the 108 steps to my room in this building, I found a gentleman lying on the stairs apparently dead. With the help of the attendants and some water, he after some time recovered.

He had mounted from the Strand to what is called the second, but is really the third, floor. He was not young, and he stated that he suffered from heart disease, and was quite exhausted when he fell. When are we to have lifts ? "FOURTH FLOOR." August 1.

N.B.-Solicitors are requested, when the application has been disposed of, to apply at once to the judge's clerk in court for the return of their papers.

NOTICE TO SOLICITORS. (Chancery Registrars' Office).

The Chancery Registrars' Office will be open daily. On Monday, the 15th of August, and on the same day in every succeeding week during the vacation, the registrar in attendance will see solicitors requiring alterations necessary in orders to be acted on by the paymaster.

NEW ORDERS, &c.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
LONG VACATION.
Notice.

During the vacation until further notice, all applications "which may require to be immediately or promptly heard," are to be made to the judges who for the time being shall act as Vacation Judges. COURT BUSINESS.-Mr. Justice Phillimore, one of the Vacation Judges, will, until further notice, sit in Q. B. Court III., Royal Courts of Justice, at 11 a.m. on Wednesday in every week, commencing on Wednesday, the 17th of August, for the purpose of hearing such applications of the above nature as, according to the practice in the Chancery Division, are usually heard in court.

No case will be placed in the judge's paper unless leave has been previously obtained, or a certificate of counsel that the case requires to be immediately or promptly heard, and stating concisely the reasons, is left with the papers.

The necessary papers, relating to every application made to the Vacation Judges (see notice below as to judges' papers), are to be left with the cause clerk in attendance, Chancery Registrars' Office, Room 136, Royal Courts of Justice, before 1 o'clock on the Monday previous to the day on which the application is intended to be made. When the cause clerk is not in attendance they may be left at Room 136, under cover, addressed to him, and marked outside Chancery Vacation Papers, or they may be sent by post, but in either case so as to be received by the time aforesaid.

URGENT MATTERS WHEN JUDGE NOT PRESENT IN COURT OR CHAMBERS.-Application may be made in any case of urgency to the judge personally, or by post or rail, prepaid, accompanied by the brief of counsel, office copies of the affidavits in support of the application, and also by a minute, on a separate sheet of paper, signed by counsel, of the order he may consider the applicant entitled to, and also an envelope, sufficiently stamped, capable of receiving the papers, addressed as follows: Chancery Official Letter to the Registrar in Vacation, Chancery Registrars' Office, Royal Courts of Justice, London, W.C."

Justice.

[ocr errors]

On applications for injunctions, in addition to the above, a copy of the writ and a certificate of writ issued must also be sent. The papers sent to the judge will be returned to the registrar. The address of the judge for the time being acting as Vacation Judge can be obtained on application at Room 136, Royal Courts of CHANCERY CHAMBER BUSINESS.--The chambers of Mr. Justice Stirling will be open on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday in every week, from 10 to 2 o'clock. Mr. Justice Phillimore will, until further notice, hear urgent summonses which may be adjourned to him in his private room, No. 366, Royal Courts of Justice (Temple Bar entrance), on Wednesday in every week, commencing on Wednesday, 17th of August, at 10.30 a.m.

QUEEN'S BENCH CHAMBER BUSINESS.-Mr. Justice Phillimore will, until further notice, sit for the disposal of Queen's Bench business in judges' chambers on Tuesday and Thursday in every week, at 10.30 a.m., commencing on Tuesday, 16th of August.

DIVORCE. Decrees nisi will be made absolute in court on Wednesday, the 24th August, Wednesday, the 14th September, and Wednesday, the 5th October.

JUDGE'S PAPERS FOR USE IN COURT.-Chancery Division.-The following papers for the Vacation Judge are required to be left with the cause clerk in attendance at the Chancery Registrars' Office, Room 136, Royal Courts of Justice, on or before one o'clock, on the Monday previous to the day on which the application to the judge is intended to be made:

1.-Counsel's certificate of urgency, or note of special leave granted by the judge.

2.-Two copies of writ and two copies of pleadings (if any), and any other documents shewing the nature of the application. 3. Two copies of notice of motion.

4.-Office copy affidavits in support, and also affidavits in answer (if any).

CASES OF THE THE WEEK. High Court-Chancery Division. RILEY v. HALL. Stirling, J. 30th July. MORTGAGE-CONSOLIDATION-RIGHT OF SOLE MORTGAGEE TO CONSOLIDATE A PRIOR MORTGAGE VESTED IN HIM JOINTLY WITH ANOTHER PERSON. This was a summons for the redemption of a mortgage, and raised a question as to the right of a sole mortgagee to consolidate with his mortgage a mortgage vested in him jointly with another person. The following are the material facts: By an indenture dated the 11th of August, 1891, and made between John Tompkins of the one part and Burns and Hall of the other part, certain freehold hereditaments were conveyed to Burns and Hall in fee by way of mortgage for securing the repayment of £1,550 therein expressed to be advanced by Burns and Hall out of moneys belonging to them on a joint account, with interest as therein mentioned. By an indenture dated the 6th of December, 1892, and made between the said J. Tompkins of the one part and the said Hall of the other part, the said J. Tompkins conveyed the said freehold hereditaments in fee (subject to the said mortgage of the 11th of August, 1891), and also assigned certain leasehold hereditaments to the said Hall by way of mortgage for securing the repayment of £100 advanced by Hall, with interest as therein mentioned. The said J. Tompkins died on the 26th of January, 1896, having by his will appointed his wife, Charlotte Tompkins, and W. Young his executors, and devised to them his real estate upon certain trusts. By an indenture Tompkins and W. Young of the one part and George Riley of the other dated the 24th of June, 1897, and made between the said Charlotte part, the said C. Tompkins and W. Young assigned the said leasehold hereditaments to the said G. Riley, subject to the said indenture of mortgage of the 6th of December, 1892, the said freehold hereditaments remaining vested in C. Tompkins and W. Young. On the 26th of August, 1897, the present summons was issued by Riley against Hall, asking to redeem the said leaseholds; and C. Tompkins and W. Young were subsequently added as defendants. The question argued upon the hear ing of the summons was whether Riley was, as against Hall, entitled to Hall alone, without also redeeming the mortgage of the 11th of August, redeem the mortgage of the 12th of December, 1892, made in favour of 1891, made in favour of Hall, jointly with Burns. defendant two points were taken why Riley should not so redeem--(1) That the mortgage of the 12th of December, 1892, was one by way of further charge, and therefore could not be redeemed without at the same time redeeming the original mortgage; and (2) that Hall was entitled to consolidate the two mortgages.

On behalf of the

STIRLING, J., held as to the first point, that on the construction of the mortgage of the 12th of December, 1892, it was a mortgage of the equity of redemption then vested in the mortgagor, and not a further charge. As to the second point, his lordship referred to the cases of Jennings V. Jordan (30 W. R. 369; 6 App. Cas.) and Pledge v. White (44 W. R. 389; 1896, A. C. 187) as recognizing that the law as to the consolidation of mortgages is that it is one of the essentials to the application of the hand. Here it was said that Hall could give a receipt at law for the doctrine of consolidation that both mortgages should be united in one money secured by the deed of 1891, but Burns could equally do so. Again, it was said that if Hall survived Burns both mortgages would then be vested in Hall; but, on the other hand, if Burns survived Hall the mortgages would be in different hands. In his lordship's opinion it could not be said that the mortgages were in one and the same hand, though there was the possibility that they might come to be so vested. The doctrine of consolidation did not therefore apply. As regarded authority, there was no actual decision on the point, though the point seemed to have been assumed by Wood, V.C., in Beevor v. Luck (15 W. R. 1221; L. R. 4 Eq. 537), but that case must now be considered to be COUNSEL, Jenkins, Q.C., and Walter Dare; Upjohn, Q.., and Stokes. overruled by Jennings v. Jordan as to the point actually decided there.SOLICITORS, Heath, Parker, & Brett; Sanders Fiske.

[Reported by WM. SCOTT THOMPSON, Barrister-at-Law.] PLASKETT v. EDDIS. North, J. 3rd Aug. SERVICE OUT OF THE JURISDICTION, ORDER XI, R. 1 (G)-SOLICITOR CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE-LIABILITY OF PARTNER.

under the following circumstances: Messrs. Sanders & Co., a firm of This was a motion to set aside the writ and proceedings in the action solicitors in Calcutta, were in 1892 instructed by two trustees of a settlement to make the investment complained of, and 45,000 rupees had been, it was alleged, invested by them upon insufficient security. The trustees at the date of the investment were David Cowie and Thomas Hardy Cowie,

the former of whom died in 1894, and the latter of whom died in 1897. One member of the firm of solicitors, Edward Cowie, died in 1895. This action was brought by the present trustees of the settlement against the executors of the surviving trustee and the three surviving partners in the firm of solicitors in Calcutta, seeking to make them liable for loss on the investment. For the applicants it was urged that all the proceedings complained of were done out of jurisdiction, and were done by Edward Cowie as solicitor for the trustees, so that Mara v. Browne (1896, 1 Ch. 199) applied. For the respondents it was said that leave to serve out of the jurisdiction had been properly given.

NORTH, J.-I think that the order giving leave to serve out of the jurisdiction ought to be discharged. The affidavits did not disclose all the material circumstances, or leave would not have been given. In 1892 money was lent upon the security of property in India, and for this it is said the representative of the last surviving trustee is liable, as the investment was not a proper one. The surviving partners in the firm of solicitors are joined, but if I had seen that Mara v. Browne applied I should not have given leave to serve them. A firm of solicitors in Calcutta was employed to make the investment, and the member of the firm through whom the business was done was Edward Cowie, and the other three members of the firm did not interfere. That does not prevent the possibility of the firm being liable. They were acting, however, for two trustees competent to give instructions. The cases shew solicitors have in times past been joined with trustees as defendants for taking part in dealing with funds in an unauthorized manner, but I doubt if these cases are consistent with Mara v. Brovne. At all events, leave to serve out of the jurisdiction would not have been given if I had known that of four solicitors forming the firm, the member of the firm who did the work was dead, and his representative is not a party, and further that one of the two trustees who are charged is dead, and his legal personal representative is not a party. If the solicitors were guilty of negligence, the new trustees are not entitled to sue, but the only persons who can claim for neglect of duty are the persons who instructed the solicitors. I should not have made the order if I had known the true facts, it is quite clear sufficient facts were not disclosed in the affidavit. I do not think these solicitors are necessary and proper parties within ord. 11, r. 1 (g). Whatever their position might be if they were solicitors here, I do not know the position of solicitors in India in a matter of this sort. Nor, if they are proper parties, is it shewn that it is convenient that the case should be tried here; these are persons who carry on business abroad, and the surviving trustee lived and died in India. There is nothing to shew that the action ought properly to be tried here. I must discharge the order.-COUNSEL, Vernon Smith, Q.C., and Sheldon; Swinfen Eady, Q.C., and Henderson. SOLICITORS, Sanderson, Adkin, & Lee; J. E. Anthony.

[Reported by G. B. HAMILTON, Barrister-at-Law.]

Bankruptcy Cases.

Re STEVENS. Ex parte THE BOARD OF TRADE. Wright and
Kennedy, JJ. 2nd August.

BANKRUPTCY-DISCHARGE-BANKRUPT CONVICTED UNDER DEBTORS ACT-SPECIAL REASONS FOR NOT REFUSING DISCHARGE-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1890 (53 & 54 VICT. c. 71), s. 8 (2)-DEBTORS ACT, 1869 (32 & 33 VICT. C. 62), ss. 14, 15.

Appeal by the Board of Trade from a decision of his honour judge Whitehorne, Q.C., in the county court at Birmingham, whereby he granted a discharge subject to a suspension of two years only to a bankrupt who had been convicted of frauds under sections 14 and 15 of the Debtors Act, 1869, and had undergone a sentence of six months' imprisonment. The bankrupt in this case had been adjudicated in 1892, and shortly afterwards convicted of the frauds above referred to. He did not apply for his discharge until 1898, and the official receiver's report, in addition to the conviction under the Debtors Act, contained several circumstances, including assets under 10s. in the £, which would have made it impossible for a less suspension than two years to be awarded. By section 8 (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, where a bankrupt has committed any misdemeanour under the Debtors Act "the court shall refuse the discharge," "unless for special reasons the court otherwise determines." The county court judge granted the debtor his discharge subject to the minimum suspension of two years. The order of discharge stated no "special reasons" for not refusing the discharge, beyond the fact that some of the jury who convicted the prisoner had recommended him to mercy. The judgment of the learned judge alleged no "special reasons," but stated that the bankrupt was but a young man and had suffered already for his misdemeanours by the term of imprisonment he had undergone. A note appended by the learned judge to his judgment stated his opinion that the bankrupt's crime was due to "confusion and distress," and that the creditors would be benefited by his early discharge.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE COURT (WRIGHT and KENNEDY, JJ.) held that none of the above facts constituted " special reasons for not refusing the bankrupt's discharge, and that where a discharge was granted under similar circumstances the facts constituting the special reasons" should be definitely set forth in the judgment and in the order of discharge.-COUNSEL, Muir Mackenzie; F. Cooper Willis. SOLICITORS, Solicitor to Board of Trade; Maurice Moses, for Weeks & Co., Birmingham.

[Reported by P. M. FRANCKE, Barrister-at-Law.l

LAW SOCIETIES.
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
ELECTIONS TO COUNCIL.

The adjourned general meeting of the Incorporated Law Society was
The VICE-
held on Thursday at the Society's Hall, Chancery-lane.
PRESIDENT (Mr. HENRY MANISTY), in the absence of the president (Mr. C.
B. Margetts), took the chair.

The VICE-PRESIDENT observed that the meeting was convened for the purpose of receiving the scrutineers' report as to the result of the ballot which had taken place during the last three weeks to the twelve vacancies. on the Council caused by the retirement of ten members in rotation and the death of Mr. Nathaniel Tertius Lawrence and Mr. James Curtis Leman. Mr. G. A. Fisher, Mr. A. H. Davidson, Mr. G. S. Macquoid, Mr. D. H. Pettitt, and Mr. Kenard Ball had been appointed scrutineers, and he would call upon Mr. Macquoid to read their report.

Mr. MACQUOID then read the report as follows: "We, the undersigned, the scrutineers duly appointed at the general meeting of the society held on the 15th day of July, 1898, to receive and examine the voting papers, and to certify the result of the election of candidates for the Council, report as follows:

The

"The secretary handed to us on Wednesday, the 3rd of August, a box containing the voting papers, which he informed us had been placed in it as they were delivered, and they were opened and examined by us. first schedule hereto annexed contains particulars of the total number of voting papers received, and the number of papers rejected and the grounds of rejection. The second schedule contains particulars of the total number of votes in favour of each candidate. The third schedule contains the names of those candidates whom we find and certify to be duly elected. "The voting papers have been duly closed up under our seal, and will be retained by us for the period of one month after the election, when we shall destroy them, as provided by bye-law 46.

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

The VICE-PRESIDENT: You will have observed that there were 1,763 voting papers to be considered and to be gone through. That entails a considerable amount of labour, which has all very carefully to be done, and I think we are all much indebted to Mr. Macquoid and the other gentlemen who kindly took upon themselves that trouble and responsibility, and I think you will all wish to join with me in thanking them for having done so. Mr. B. G. LAKE seconded the motion, which was agreed to with acclamation.

It will be seen that all the retiring members of the Council have been re-elected, and that the new members are: Mr. Henry James Johnson (admitted February, 1879, of Messrs. Waltons, Johnson, Bubb, &

The condition of Judge Parry, of the Manches ter County Court, who Whatton, Leadenhall-street), Mr. Harry Wilmot Lee (admitted Michaelwas shot on the bench by a bailiff last week, has become less satisfactory.mas, 1870, of Messrs, Lee, Bolton, & Lee, The Sanctuary, Westminster),

Mr. Charles Stewart (admitted Hilary, 1873, of Messrs. Markby, Stewart, & Co., Coleman-street), and Mr. Philip Witham (admitted 1866, of Messrs. Witham, Roskell, Munster, & Weld, of 1, Gray's-inn-square).

ANNUAL REPORT.

(Continued from p. 690.)

Long Vacation.-The resolution passed at the general meeting in July, 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.

the Committee of the House of Commons.

£9 128. 8d., the plaintiff having claimed £27, which had been reduced by payment into court by the defendant to £12 10s., for which sum the plaintiff obtained judgment. The Divisional Court allowed the costs according to Scale B. (Maw v. Best, 42 S. J. 382). Conducting Scale Fee.The taxing master having disallowed solicitors the conducting scale fee, on the ground that they did not personally take the biddings at the sale or hold an auctioneer's licence, the Council undertook to support an appeal, but, on reconsideration, the taxing master allowed the fee. (Re Ainsworth, deceased.) victed of various criminal offences, have, on the application of the society, Professional Matters.-During the past year five solicitors, who were conbeen 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 in-proceedings have been abandoned on payment of costs by the defendants. certificates which had been allowed to lapse for more than twelve months Numerous applications for the renewal and taking out of practising have been considered and dealt with according to circumstances. In some cases the certificates were only authorized to issue on payment by the applicants of arrears of duty and a fine in addition. Appeals against the refusal of the Council to grant orders for practising certificates have been heard by the Master of the Rolls, but in every case his lordship upheld their decision. The Council have found it necessary to oppose two applications for restoration to the roll, but the Master of the Rolls upon hearing the petitioners, and after full inquiry, has found it expedient to grant the applications, imposing, however, certain conditions. The Divisional Court declined to strike off the rolls (upon the motion of the society) a solicitor who had previously been struck off a colonial roll for professional misconduct. In reply to a communication from the Master of the Rolls, the Council have intimated to the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls that they would have no objection to section 32 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, being modified, so as to give the court a discretionary power to relieve, under special circumstances, a solicitor who has been convicted of an offence under that section from the disability from ever again practising as a solicitor. The attention of the Council having been drawn to the increasing practice throughout the county courts, both in taking proceedings and appearing in county courts in various ways for the metropolis and the provinces, of debt collectors and of so-called trade protection societies, by their representatives and other unqualified persons, reward (usually in the form of a commission on the recovery of the debts), the Council are now in communication with the provincial law societies to ascertain how far it is the feeling of the profession generally that the practice ought to be prohibited.

Parliamentary Committee on Money Lending.-The society having been vited to offer suggestious as to remedies or alterations in the present state of the law with regard to money lending, the subject was referred to a committee, who reported thereon. The principal suggestions put forward were that the minimum limit on bills of sale by way of security should be raised from £30 to £50; that a bill of sale by way of security should be attested by a solicitor: that a borrower under a bill of sale repayable at a fixed date or by instalments should be at liberty to redeem at any time; and that the powers of the High Court and county courts should be declared and extended so as to enable them to interfere in money lending transactions when there has been oppression or unfair dealing, and especially that this relief should be obtained in chambers and without any undue publicity. The report, as adopted by the Council, was communicated to Trustee Investments.-Communications having been made to the Lord Chancellor with a view to extending the range of trustee investments, his lordship appointed a small committee to consider the question, and requested the Council to nominate one of its members for the committee. The Council nominated Mr. William Williams, and appointed a committee of the Council to consider the subject. This committee's suggestions were embodied in a report, which was communicated to the Lord Chancellor. General Council of the Bar, dated the 5th of August, 1897, various objecConduct of Business in the Queen's Bench Division.-In the report of the tions were taken to the procedure in the Queen's Bench Division; in particular, that there was want of method, certainty, and continuity in the constitution and procedure of the courts; that during the time of circuit the courts, open in London, were inadequate to deal with the business; and that the present circuit system was defective. The report was referred by the Council of this society to a committee for consideration. While agreeing generally with the allegations of the Bar Council the committee made the following additional suggestions-viz., (1) That an official with practical experience of litigation should be appointed, with the rank of Master of the Supreme Court, whose duty it should be to arrange the cause lists of the Queen's Bench Division under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice. (2) That this master should arrange the cause lists in groups, after consultation with the solicitors of the parties, keeping, so far as possible, causes of a like character in the same group. (3) That each of these groups of causes should be assigned to a separate rota of judges in the Queen's Bench Division, selected for the sittings only. (4) That particular court rooms should be fixed, in which the trials of each of such groups of causes should be conducted. (5) That Divisional Courts should be altogether abolished.

An Appendix to the report gives the ninth annual report of the committee appointed under the Solicitors Act, 1888. In compliance with the resolution passed by the Council on the 11th of January, 1889, the committee present the following report of their proceedings from the 1st of August, 1896 (up to which date their eighth report was made), to the 31st of July, 1897, when the committee rose for the vacation. During that period the committee has held eighty-four meetings, of which forty-two were for general business and forty-two were for hearing cases. Twelve cases occupied the whole or part of two or more sittings each, one case extending to no fewer than eight sittings. During the same period 108 applications have been made to the committee. Of these, fourteen were applications by solicitors to have their names removed from the roll at their own request, with a view to their being called to the bar or for other reasons. In thirteen cases the committee reported in favour of the application, which was thereupon granted by the Master of the Rolls. The remaining case is under consideration by his lordship. Of the remaining ninety-four applications, committee; 1 was struck out of the list, the respondent having been struck off the roll on another complaint; I was dismissed, the applicant not appearing; 2 have been adjourned generally; 19 were heard and reported on by the committee; 10 were heard, but the complainants failed at the hearing to make out any case, and the parties consented that no report should be made to the court; 6 are awaiting hearing. At the date of the last report six cases were awaiting hearing. These have been dealt with, as well as two cases which had been adjourned generally, but were restored to the list for hearing at the request of the complainants. Of these eight cases four were withdrawn by leave of the committee, one was heard and reported on (bringing up the number of cases heard and reported on during the year to twenty); one was struck out of the list for want of prosecution; one was struck out of the list, the solicitor having been struck off the roll at the instance of the society on the ground of his having been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and one case was not made out at the hearing, the parties consenting that no report should be made. In two of the twenty cases heard and reported on, the solicitor was exonerated. In eighteen cases the committee found that the charges were wholly or partly proved. Seventeen reports have been brought before the court with the result that in fifteen cases the solicitors were struck off the roll; in another the matter was ordered to stand over until after the Long Vacation; and in the remaining case the solicitor was ordered to pay the costs. One report is not yet ripe for hearing by the court. At the date of the last annual report, two cases had been set down for hearing by the court, but had not been reached. These have since been dealt with. In one of the cases the solicitor was struck off the roll, and ordered to pay the costs; and in the other the solicitor was ordered to pay the costs. committee were preparing their reports upon two cases which had been

Stamp Duties Regulations.-In conjunction with the associated provincial law societies the Council have had under consideration the present methods of regulating stamp duties, viz.: (1) by Act of Parliament, (2) by judicial decision, and (3) by official circular. The last two methods give rise to much uncertainty and hardship in that they have a retrospec-47 disclosed no case for inquiry; 8 were withdrawn by leave of the tive operation. This is exemplified particularly in the following cases, viz.: (a) Debentures to be redeemed at a premium; (b) Transfers of mortgages in part repaid when, the mortgagor being a party, the old proviso for redemption has been released, and a new proviso inserted; (e) Conveyances in fee farm or sub-leases reserving a rent to a mortgagee by way of substituted security; (d) Conveyances subject to the payment of the whole or part of a chief or ground rent previously created, when either the rent or the property is not identical with the original rent or property, and there is no legal apportionment of the rent. In each of these cases decisions or regulations have been made upsetting the previously understood practice as to stamping. The commissioners recognize that solicitors have cause for complaint on this subject, and at meetings that have taken place between the commissioners and the Council and the associated provincial law societies the commissioners have expressed their willingness to consider suggestions for a remedy. A clause for insertion in one of the Inland Revenue Bills is now under consideration. As regards stamping debentures, some relief has been already extended by the commissioners, on the application of the Council, resulting in an arrangement whereby the extra duty may be paid in one sum, without the necessity of producing each debenture. The commissioners also extended the time for stamping transfers of mortgage of the class mentioned until the 31st of December, 1898.

Lifts in the Royal Courts of Justice. The Council have been in correspondence with the Lord Chancellor in support of an application for lifts in that part of the building appropriated to the offices of the Supreme Court. Cases Affecting Solicitors. Since the date of the last annual report the following cases have been supported by the Council, viz.: County Court Costs. An appeal from the Malton County Court against a decision of the judge allowing on Scale A. the costs of a successful counterclaim of

At the same date the

« PreviousContinue »