Page images
PDF
EPUB

Courts Act, 1888. It requires the parties to sign, in the lord (Miller v. Hancock, 1893, 2 Q. B. 177), and upon principle presence of the registrar, or of one of his clerks, or of a solicitor, it would be difficult to absolve him from liability also for any à statement embodying the agreed terms of settlement, and repairs which are essential for the convenience and safety of the provides, that thereupon judgment for the plaintiff, in accord building as a whole. Possibly it will be found that this last ance with such statement, shall be entered up, which judgment decision has undermined the authority of the note in SAUNDERS. shall, to all intents and purposes, be the same, and have the But as a rule it is not safe to assume that the landlord undersame effect, and be enforced and enforceable in the same manner, takes any liability to repair, except such as may be cast upon as if it had been a judgment of the judge of the county court. 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 Is it evidence of insanity in a testator that he believes himself who is injured by its escape, and to treat the water as & to have been the recipient of direct Divine commands as to the dangerous thing brought upon the premises by the landlord disposition he should make of his property ? The House of which he must keep in at his own peril. The rule of law,

it Lords in Hope v. Campbell have answered this question in the was laid down in that case, is, that the person who, for his affirmative. The late Mr. John HOPE was at once a successful own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there Scotch lawyer and a strong advocate of total abstinence and of anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at Protestantism. His law was necessarily confined to this world, his peril'; and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable but he wished to perpetuate his efforts on behalf of his favourite for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its principles by making provision for their advancement after his

escape.

But the rule is not absolute—the defendant, for death. By his testamentary trusts he directed his trustees to instance, can excuse himself by shewing that the escapo was expend from £1,000 to £1,500 a year on these objects. In the consequence of vis major-and there are special consideraan action brought to set aside the trusts it was alleged tions applicable to the case of water stored in an ordinary that they were created “in consequence of commands which cistern which have hitherto prevented the rule from being used he conceived he had received from the Deity by direct with success against the landlord of a house. communication on various occasions,” and that by reason of In Carstairs v. Taylor (L. R. 6 Ex. 217) the landlord " these insane delusions” Mr. Hope was incapable of making succeeded on the ground that the escape of the water was duo his will. The_Scotch courts rejected the allegation, but in to vis major-in plain English, to a rat. The landlord occupied the House of Lords Lords Watson and SHAND (Lord DAVEY the upper part of a warehouse himself and let the ground-floor diss.) have allowed it. It is unfortunate that the House to tenants. The water from the roof was collected by gutters was so small; it would have been interesting to have had the into a box, and thence discharged by a pipe into the drains. A views of some other English law lords on the point. But it is hole was made in the box by a rat, and the water entered the merely a matter of pleading, and, even if the allegation is warehouse and damaged the tenants' goods. It appeared that proved, it does not follow that the trusts will be upset. As the landlord was not guilty of negligence, as the box was con, Lord DAVEY remarked, delusions such as those alleged against structed in the mode ordinarily used in the neighbourhood, and Mr. HOPE have been shared by some of the greatest benefactors the roof was periodically examined. The incursion of the rat of mankind; and, in themselves, they hardly go far to prove was an accident which the landlord did not foresee, and against insanity,

which he was not bound to provide. But the judgments in the caso also suggest another ground upon which the rule in

Rylands v. Fletcher was inapplicable. That rule assumes DAMAGE FROM ESCAPE OF WATER.

that the defendant brings the water upon his premises An interesting decision upon the liability of a landlord in respect for his purposes only. In Carstarr: v.

Taylor of an escape of water was given by a Divisional Court (WRIGHT the roof

for the common protection of both and DARLING, JJ.) in the recent case of Blake g Co. v. Woolf landlord and tenant, and the collection of water running (ante, p. 688). The defendant was the owner of premises in the from it was also for their joint benefit. “The plaintiffs," said City, and the plaintiffs were tenants under him of the basement BRAMWELL, B., "must bò taken to have consented to this and ground-floor. The water for the whole house was supplied collection of water which was for their own benefit, and the from a cistern at the top of the premises, which apparently was defendant can only be liable if he was guilty of negligence." under the defendant's control; and the plaintiffs entered upon The reason thus suggested for excluding the doctrine of Rylands their tenancy after the water was laid on, and used the supply v. Fletcher applies equally to the case of water brought into a from the cistern. On a Friday the plaintiffs discovered that house for the common use of the occupants, and in Ross v. Fedden there was a leakage of water from the cistern, and they at once (L. R. 7 Q. B. 661) it was further pointed out that the flow of gave notice to the defendant, and requested him to have the water through a house is to be treated as the natural state of matter put right. The defendant, on receipt of the notice, things-at any rate, if it exists when the tenancy commences. employed a plumber to repair the leakage, but the plumber did The flow of water through cisterns and pipes then in operation his work so negligently that the leakage became worse ; and is equivalent to the natural flow of water. when the premises were opened on the following Monday the Such being the view which has provailed, it would obviously plaintiffs found their rooms flooded and their goods damaged. have been difficult to make the landlord liable in the present They brought an action in the City of London Court, and case of Blake f Co. v. Woolf. The doctrine of Rylande. Vi obtained a declaration of the landlord's liability, the amount of Fletcher must be taken to be excluded both upon the ground that the damages being left to be assessed subsequently ; but in the the water was brought upon the promises for the use of the Divisional Court this result has been reversed, and the landlord plaintiffs in common with the other occupants of the premises, is absolved from the consequences of the plumber's negligence. and that the flow of water through the house was part of the

In such cases it is not, as a rule, possible to rely upon the natural state of things. In other words, the landlord, in por contractual relation of landlord and tenant. The rule that the mitting such flow to exist, was doing no more than using the landlord is not bound to keep the demised premises in repair premises in an ordinary and reasonable manner. He was under applies, notwithstanding that the tenant has taken only part of no liability, therefore, to guarantee the tenants against damage an unfurnished house and the landlord retains control of the rest. in consequence of an escape of water, and, as they did not set It has been even said that a landlord who lets the lower part of up any contractual liability, he could only have been liable in a house is under no obligation to repair the roof. The opposite, the event of negligence. But the negligence which was proved indeed, was stated by RAINSFORD, J., to be the law in Pomfret v. was the negligence not of the landlord or of his servants, but Ricrofi (1 Wms. Saund. 557), but the notes to that case treat the of an independent contractor, and for the consequences of this lessor as not liable, and this view has been accepted as correct (see the landlord was not liable. So far as the decided cases have in the case of a common staircase to a building let out in flats of damage through any accidental defect in the supply of it has been held that the duty of repair is cast upon the land water.

[ocr errors]

was

JED.

whereas he ought to have an estate paramount to the fee con. THE LAND TRANSFER RULES.

ferred' by registration. The rule should, we think, be amended XIII. (CONCLUSION).

80 as to provide that the disposition should have the same effect Part 1:Miscellaneous. Maps and verbal descriptions of land.— | as if the land had not been situated in a compulsory district

(ante, p. 551). Rules 199 to 211 seem to leave nothing to be desired as regards

That this list (which does not profess to be exhaustive) of the delineation and description of registered land. After a long suggested amendments is so short speaks for the thoroughness conflict the right to use a verbal description in aid of the plan and ability of the Rule Committee ; but, of course, the list does has been secured (see the Act of 1897, s. 14), though necessarily not in any way represent the objections which may properly be the verbal particulars must be first submitted to the registrar taken to the Land Transfer Acts. Nothing short of a repeal (rule 207). It will be observed that unless the boundaries are and re-enactment of those Acts in technical language will over expressly defined (rules 201-3), in which case notices to the ad secure a fair chance for the system proposed to be established. joining 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).

REVIEWS. Inspection, searches, and copies of the register.-The provisions

BOOKS RED (rules 212-20) are amply sufficient to secure the secrecy of the register without being unreasonably strict. Why, however, The Law of the Press. A Digest of the Law affecting Newspapers any distinction (rule 220) is drawn between the first year after in England, India, and the Colonies. By JOSEPH R. FISHER, B.A., removal of land from the register, and afterwards, is by no means Barrister-at-Law, and J. ANDREW STRAHAN, M.A., LL.B., Barrisclear, unless we are to assume that the rule is aimed at dis- ter-at-Law. Second Edition. William Clowes & Sons (Limited). couraging the removal of land from the register. It this be the Handbook on the Licensing Acts and their Administration. By reason, we submit that it is wrong in principle. For the Legis

ALFRED T. DAVIES, Solicitor and Notary Public ; Cursitor of the lature having now conferred a power (Act of 1897, s. 17) of County Palatine of Lancaster. Third Edition. Macmillan & Co. removal except in compulsory districts, the rules should do

(Limited) everything to facilitate the exercise of that power.

The Law Magazine and Review, August, 1898. William Clowes & The remaining rules we have commented on in the

Sons (Limited)

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,

CORRESPONDENCE. with advantage, be amended.

MR. HOOLEY'S EXAMINATION. Summary of suggested amendments :

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] (1) Tenant by the curtesy.-Rule 7 should apply only to a right to dower (ante, pp. 446, 667).

Sir,-Mr. Hooley, in his examination yesterday, is reported to (2) Right of consolidation.—Rule 112 should show that the getting our names on the prospectus of Schweppes (Timited), a fee of

have said that he thought he had paid to us, for the purpose of reservation of the right is not to operate until something is done 21,000, for which we did no professional work. The statement, if by the charges to exercise the right (ante, p. 446).

correctly reported, is untrue. (3) Registration of executor without probate.-Rule 126 should We, as solicitors for the Law Debenture Corporation (Limited) provide that probate is to be produced within a limited time (which was trustee for the debenture stock holders), were instructed (ante, p. 446)

to investigate the title to the various properties and water rights (4) Restrictions, 8c., where tenant for life is registered.—The (fourteen in number), to prepare and complete the trust-deed, and

We never had forms of these restrictions and inhibitions require amendment to see that the issue of stock was validly made. (ante, pp. 446, 520, 589, 631-2).

any direct communication with Mr. Hooley, who was represented by

his solicitors, Messrs. Ashwell & Tutin. Our first instructions were (5) Transfers to the uses of a settlement.--These forms also re

received on the 15th of April, 1897—the trust-deed was completed quire amendment (ante, pp. 447, 589).

on the 28th of July, 1897—but the work of adjudicating the deeds (6) No rules for valuation of property of deceased person for for stamp duties and completing the conveyance of the Australian purposes of Act of 1897, 8. 4. - These rules remain to be pre-properties was not completed until February, 1898. Our costs, scribed ; rule 255 appears only to relate to registered land including disbursements other than stamp duties, amounted to (ante, p. 486).

£234 178. 6d., which is less than the scale authorized by the Solicitors'

on the 16th of (7) No power to issue new certificate on foreclosurs.--Rule 107 Remuneration Act, 1881, and an account was should give this power (ante, pp. 486, 608). And rule 19. December, 1897, submitted to Messrs. Leonard & Pilditch, the requires verbal amendment (ante, p. 684).

solicitors for Schweppes (Limited).

£1,000 was, on the completion of trust-deed, handed to the Law (8) Legal estate. Where it is got in by a registered proprietor Debenture Corporation in order to pay the stamp duties on the trustthe rules should provide that it is to be extinguished in the deeds and conveyances. A list of the payments for these duties—which statutory estate. Where an incumbrance entered on the register amounted to £830--was on the 20th December, 1897, sent to Messrs, is discharged, the rules should provide that the discharge of the Leonard & Pilditch, and with their sanction the balance of £170 was incumbrance is ipso facto to destroy any legal estate held by the applied towards payment of our costs. On the 16th of February, incumbrancer (ante, pp. 505, 569, 647, 681-2).

1898, Messrs. Leonard & Pilditch sent us Mr. Hooley's cheque for the (9) Caution against registration of land.--Form No. 12 requires

balance of £84 178, 6d, amendment (ante, p. 550).

No fee was received by the Law Debenture Corporation for con

senting to act as trustee or for allowing its name to appear on the (10) Persons in fiduciary position. The rules should free such prospectus. Its remuneration is by an annual payment which is persons from liability in respect of an investment on a registered made by the company and seoured by the trust-deed. charge (ante, p. 608).

LAKE & LAKE. (11) Power for registrar to inhibit mortgage by deposit.— The 10, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C., Aug. 2. 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).

THE LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897. (13) Notices of leases. In each form of a registered charge a

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] stipulation should be implied, unless there is an entry to the contrary, to give effect to mortgagors' leases (ante, p. 667).

Sir,-By the will of A (who died in 1886) the X freehold estate, of (14) Conveyance and mortgage prior to compulsory registration. - last) for life, with remainder over.

which he held the fee simple, was devised to B (who died in March Rule 77 is not aptly framed to carry out its object, as it provides or administrator is real representative of B within the meaning of that the disposition is to have the same effect as if it had been section 1 of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, for the purpose of the X executed subsequently to the registration of the purchaser, which estate, as, if so, his assent is necessary to the vesting of the remainder. seems to relegate the disposition by the purchaser to the place in practice will write to you about their experience, as it is a matter of an unregistered disposition made after first registration, of interest to the profession ?

THE NECESSITY FOR LIFTS AT THE ROYAL COURTS.

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 [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

return of their papers. Sir, --On Saturday morning, when mounting the 108 steps to my

NOTICE TO SOLICITORS. room in this building, I found a gentleman lying on the stairs apparently dead. With the help of the attendants and some water,

(Chancery Registrars' Office). he after some time recovered.

The Chancery Registrars' Office will be open daily. On Monday, He had mounted from the Strand to what is called the second, but the 15th of August, and on the same day in every succeeding week is really the third, floor. He was not young, and he stated that he during the vacation, the registrar in attendance will see solicitors suffered from heart disease, and was quite exhausted when he fell. requiring alterations necessary in orders to be acted on by the paymaster. When are we to have lifts ?

“FOURTH FLOOR." August 1.

CASES OF THE WEEK.
NEW ORDERS, &c.

High Court-Chancery Division.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

RILEY v. HALL. Stirling, J. 30th July.
LONG VACATION.

MORTGAGE-CONSOLIDATION—RIGHT OF SOLE MORTGAGEE TO CONSOLIDATE
Notice.

A PRIOR MORTGAGE VESTED IN HIM JOINTLY WITH ANOTHER Person, During the vacation until further notice, all applications "which This was a summons for the redemption of a mortgage, and raised a may require to be immediately or promptly heard,” are to be made question as to the right of a sole mortgagee to consolidate with his to the judges who for the time being shall act as Vacation Judges. mortgage a mortgage vested in him jointly with another person. The

COURT BUSINESS.-Mr. Justice Phillimore, one of the Vacation following are the material facts : By an indenture dated the 11th of Judges, will, until further notice, sit in Q. B. Court III., Royal August, 1891, and made between John Tompkins of the one part and Courts of Justice, at 11 a.m. on Wednesday in every week, com

Burns and Hall of the other part, certain freehold hereditaments were mencing on Wednesday, the 17th of August, for the purpose of conveyed to Burns and Ha!l in fee by way of mortgage for securing the hearing such applications of the above nature as, according to 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 practice in the Chancery Division, are usually heard in court.

therein mentioned. By an indenture dated the 6th of December, 1892, No case will be placed in the judge's paper unless leave has been and made between the said J. Tompkins of the one part and the said previously obtained, or a certificate of counsel that the case requires Hall of the other part, the said J. Tompkins conveyed the to be immediately or promptly heard, and stating concisely the said freehold hereditaments in fea (subject to the said mortgage of reasons, is left with the papers.

the 11th of August, 1891), and also assigned certain leasehold The necessary papers, relating to every application made to the hereditaments to the said Hall by way of mortgage for securing the Vacation Judges (see notice below as to judges' papers), are to be repayment of £100 advanced by Hall, with interest as therein mentioned left with the cause clerk in attendance, Chancery Registrars' Office, The said J. Tompkins died on the 26th of January, 1896, having by his Room 136, Royal Courts of Justice, before 1 o'clock on the Monday and devised to them his real estate upon certain trusts. By an indenture previous to the day on which tbe application is intended to be made. When the cause clerk is not in attendance they may be left at Room 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 136, under cover, addressed to him, and marked outside Chancery part, the said C. Tompkins and W. Young assigned the said leasehold Vacation Papers, or they may be sent by post, but in either case so hereditaments to the said G. Riley, subject to the said indenture of mortas to be received by the time aforesaid.

gage of the 6th of December, 1892, the said freehold hereditaments URGENT MATTERS WHEN JUDGE NOT PRESENT IN COURT OR remaining vested in C. Tompkins and w. Young. On the 26th of August, CHAMBERS.--Application may be made in any case of urgency to the 1897, the present summons was issued by Riley against Hall, asking to judge personally, or by post or rail, prepaid, accompanied by the redeem the said leaseholds ; and C. Tompkins and W. Young were brief of counsel, office copies of the affidavits in support of the subsequently added as defendants. The question argued upon the hearapplication, and also by a minute, on a separate sheet of paper, ing of the summons was whether Riley was, as against Hall, entitled to signed by counsel, of the order he may consider the applicant redeem the mortgage of the 12th of December, 1892, made in favour of entitled to, and also an envelope, sufficiently stamped, capable of Hall alone, without also redeeming the mortgage of the 11th of August, receiving the papers, addressed as follows: Chancery Official

1891, made in favour of Hall, jointly with Burns. On behalf of the Letter: to the Registrar_in Vacation, Chancery Registrars' Office, the mortgage of the 12th of December, 1892, was one by way of further

defendant two points were taken why Riley should not so redeem--(1) That Royal Courts of Justice, London, W.C.”

charge, and therefore could not be redeemed without at the same time On applications for injunctions, in addition to the above, a copy redeeming the original mortgage; and (2) that Hall was entitled to of the writ and a certificate of writ issued must also be sent. consolidate the two mortgages.

The papers sent to the judge will be returned to the registrar. STIRLING, J., held as to the first point, that on the construction of the

The address of the judge for the time being acting as Vacation mortgage of the 12th of December, 1892, it was a mortgage of the equity Judge can be obtained on application at Room 136, Royal Courts of of redemption then vested in the mortgagor, and not a further charge. Justice.

As to the second point, his lordship referred to the cases of Jennings v. CHANCERY CHAMBER BUSINESS.--The chambers of Mr. Justice Jordan (30 W. R. 369; 6 App. Cas.) and Pledge v. White (44 W. R. 389; Stirling will be open on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday 1896, A. C: 187) as recognizing that the law as to the consolidation of in every week, from 10 to 2 o'clock. Mr. Justice Phillimore will, mortgages is that it is one of the essentials to the application of the until further notice, hear urgent summonses which may be adjourned hand. Here it was said that Hall could give a receipt at law for the to him in his private room, No. 366, Royal Courts of Justice (Temple money secured by the deed of 1891, but Burns could equally do so. Bar entrance), on Wednesday in every week, commencing on Wednes- Again, it was said that if Hall survived Burns both mortgages would then day, 17th of August, at 10.30 a.m.

be vested in Hall; but, on the other hand, if Burns survived Hall the QUEEN'S BENCH CHAMBER BUSINESS.—Mr. Justice Phillimore will, mortgages would be in different hands. In his lordship's opinion it until further notice, sit for the disposal of Queen's Bench business in could not be said that the mortgages were in one and the samel hand, judges' chambers on Tuesday and Thursday in every week, at 10.30 though there was the possibility that they might come to be so vested. a.m., commencing on Tuesday, 16th of August.

The doctrine of consolidation did not therefore apply. As regarded DIVORCE. -- Decrees nisi will be made absolute in court on authority, there was no actual decision on the point, though the point Wednesday, the 24th August, Wednesday, the 14th September, and seemed to have been assumed by Wood, V.C., in Beevor v. Luck (15 W.R. Wednesday, the 5th October.

1221 ; L. R. 4 Eq. 537), but that case must now be considered to be JUDGE's 'PAPERS FOR USE IN Court.-Chancery Division.—The COUNSEL, Jenkins, Q.C., and Walter Dare; Upjohn, Q.9., and Stokes.

overruled by Jennings v. Jordan as to the point actually decided there.following papers for the Vacation Judge are required to be left with Solicitors, Heath, Parker, f. Brett; Sanders Fiske. the cause clerk in attendance at the Chancery Registrars' Office,

[Reported by W. Scott Thompson, Barrister-at-Law.] 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

PLASKETT v. EDDIS. North, J. 3rd Aug. intended to be made :

SERVICE OUT OF THE JURISDICTION, Order XI , R. 1 (G)-SOLICITOR1.-Counsel's certificate of urgency, or note of special leave

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE-LIABILITY OF PARTNER. granted by the judge. 2.-Two copies of writ and two copies of pleadings (if any), and under the following circumstances : Messrs. Sanders & Co., a firm of

This was a motion to set aside the writ and proceedings in the action any other documents showing the nature of the application.

solicitors in Calcutta, were in 1892 instructed by two trustees of a settle3.-Two copies of notice of motion.

ment to make the investment complained of, and 45,000 rupees had been, 4.-Office copy affidavits in support, and also affidavits in answer it was alleged, invested by them upon insufficient security. The trustees (if any).

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

LAW SOCIETIES. action was brought by the present trustees of the settlement against the executors of the surviving trustee and the three surviving partners in the

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. firm of solicitors in Calcutta, seeking to make them liable for loss on the

ELECTIONS TO COUNCIL. investment. For the applicants it was urged that all the proceedings complained of were done out of jurisdiction, and were done by Edward The adjourned general meeting of the Incorporated Law Society was Cowie as solicitor for the trustees, so that Mara v. Browne (1896, 1 Ch. 199) held on Thursday at the Society's Hall, Chancery-lane. The Viceapplied. For the respondents it was said that leave to serve out of the PRESIDENT (Mr. Henry MANISTY), in the absence of the president (Mr. C. jurisdiction had been properly given.

B. Margetts), took the chair. NORTH, J.-I think that the order giving leave to serve out of the

The VICE-PRESIDENT observed that the meeting was convened for the jurisdiction ought to be discharged. The affidavits did not disclose all purpose of receiving the scrutineers' report as to the result of the ballot the material circumstances, or leave would not have been given. In 1892 which had taken place during the last three weeks to the twelve vacancies money was lent upon the security of property in India, and for this it is on the Council caused by the retirement of ten members in rotation and said the representative of the last surviving trustee is liable, as the invest- the death of Mr. Nathaniel Tertius Lawrence and Mr. James Curtis ment was not a proper one. The surviving partners in the firm of Leman. Mr. G. A. Fisher, Mr. A. H. Davidson, Mr. G. 8. Macquoid, solicitors are joined, but if I had seen that Mara v. Browne applied i Mr. D. f. Pettitt, and Mr. Kenard Ball had been appointed scrutineers, should not have given leave to serve them. A firm of solicitors in and he would call upon Mr. Macquoid to read their report. Calcutta was employed to make the investment, and the member of the

Yr. MACQUOID then read the report as follows: “We, the undersigned, firm through whom the business was done was Edward Cowie, and the the scrutineers duly appointed at the general meeting of the society held other three members of the firm did not interfere. That does not

on the 15th day of July, 1898, to receive and examine the voting papers, prevent the possibility of the firm being liable. They were acting, and to certify the result of the election of candidates for the Council, however, for two trustees competent to give instructions. The cases report as follows: shew solicitors have in times past been joined with trustees as defend.

** The secretary handed to us on Wednesday, the 3rd of August, a box ants for taking part in dealing with funds in an unauthorized containing the voting papers, which he informed us bad been placed in it manner, but I doubt if these cases are consistent with Mara v. Brosone. At as they were delivered, and they were opened and examined by us. The all events, leave to serve out of the jurisdiction would not have been given first schedule hereto annexed contains particulars of the total number of if I had known that of four solicitors forming the firm, the member of the voting papers received, and the number of papers rejected and the firm who did the work was dead, and his representative is not a party, grounds of rejection. The second schedule contains particulars of the and further that one of the two trustees who are charged is dead, and his total number of votes in favour of each candidate. The third schedule legal personal representative is not a party. If the solicitors were guilty of contains the names of those candidates whom we find and certify to be negligence, the new trustees are not entitled to sue, but the only persons

duly elected. who can claim for neglect of duty are the persons who instructed the

". The voting papers have been duly closed up under our seal, and will be solicitors. I should not have made the order if I had known the true retained by us for the period of one month after the election, when we facts, it is quite clear sufficient facts were not disclosed in the affidavit. shall destroy them, as provided by bye-law 46. I do not think these solicitors are necessary and proper parties within

"(Signed) George A. Fisher, Chairman. ord. 11, r. 1 (g). Whatever their position might be if they were solicitors

ALAN H. DAVIDSON. here, I do not know the position of solicitors in India in a matter of this

GILBERT S. MACQUOID. sort. Nor, if they are proper parties, is it shewn that it is convenient

DONALD H. PETTITT. that the case should be tried here; these are persons who carry on busi

KENARD BALL. ness abroad, and the surviving trustee lived and died in India. There is “3rd August, 1898." nothing to shew that the action ought properly to be tried here. I must The first schedule referred to in the annexed report: “The number of discharge the order.-Counsel, Vernon Smith, Q.C., and Sheldon ; Swinfen voting papers received, 1.763; of which there were—(a) Received after the Eady, Q.C., and Henderson. Solicitors, Sanderson, Adkin, & Lee; J. E. prescribed date, 13; (6) Unsigned, 6; (c) No name struck out, 2." Anthony.

The second schedule referred in the annexed report : [Reported by G. B. Hamilton, Barrister-at-Law.]

Total votes. “ Grantham Robert Dodd

998 William Godden ...

1,562 Bankruptcy Cases. Henry James Johnson

1,496 Grinham Keen

1,547 Re STEVENS. Ex parte THE BOARD OF TRADE. Wright and

Harry Wilmot Lee

1,488 Kennedy, JJ. 2nd August. Richard Pennington

1,556 BANKRUPTCY-DISCHARGE–BANKRUPT CONVICTED UNDER Debtors Act

Sir Albert K. Rollit

1,544 SPECIAL REASONS FOR NOT Refusing DISCHARGE-BANKRUPTCY Act, 1890

Charles Stewart

1,465 63 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 8 (2)— DEBTORS Act, 1869 (32 & 33 VICT. C.

William Melproth Walters

1,584 62), ss. 14, 15.

Arthur Wightman

1,595

William Williams Appeal by the Board of Trade from a decision of his honour judge

1,544

William Howard Winterbotham Whiteborne, Q.C., in the county court at Birmingham, whereby he

1,510 granted a discharge subject to a suspension of two years only to a

Philip Witham

1,135" bankrupt who had been convicted of frauds under sections 14 and 15 of

The third schedule referred to in the annexed report : the Debtors Act, 1869, and had undergone a sentence of six months' im

" NAMES OF CANDIDATES DULY ELECTED. prisonment. The bankrupt in this case had been adjudicated in 1892,

" Arthur Wightman and shortly afterwards convicted of the frauds above referred to. Hé

1,595

William Melmoth Walters did not apply for bis discharge until 1898, and the official receiver's

1,584

William Godden... report, in addition to the conviction under the Debtors Act, contained

1,562

Richard Pennington several circumstances, including assets under 10s. in the £, which would

1,556

Grinbam Keen bave made it impossible for a less suspension than two years to be

1,547

Sir Albert K. Rollit awarded. By section 8 (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, where a

1,544

William Williams bankrupt has committed any misdemeanour under the Debtors Act “the

1,544 court shall refuge ihe discharge,

“unless for special reasons
William Howard Winterbotham

1,510 the court otherwise determines." The county court judge granted the debtor

Henry James Johnson

1,496 his discharge subject to the minimum suspension of two years. The order

Harry Wilmot Lee

1,488

Charles Stewart of discharge stated no “special reasons” for not refusing the discharge,

1,465 beyond the fact that some of the jury who convicted the prisoner had

Philip Witham

1,135 recommended him to mercy. The judgment of the learned judge

(Signed) GEORGE A. Fisher, Chairman, alleged no “special reasons,” but stated that the bankrupt was but a

ALAN H. DAVIDSON. young man and had suffered already for his misdemeanours by the term of

GILBERT S. MACQUOID. imprisonment he had undergone. A note appended by the learned judge

DONALD H. PETTITT. to bis judgment stated his opinion that the bankrupt's crime was due to

KENARD Ball." “confusion and distress," and that the creditors would be benefited by The VICE-PRESIDENT: You will have observed that there were 1,763 his early discharge.

voting papers to be considered and to be gone through. That entails a The Court (Wright and KENNEDY, JJ.) held that none of the above considerable amount of labour, which has all very carefully to be done, facts constituted special reasons for not refusing the bankrupt’s and I think we are all much indebted to Mr. Macquoid and the other discharge, and that where a discharge was granted under similar circum- gentlemen who kindly took upon themselves that trouble and responsibility, stances the facts constituting the special reasons ” should be definitely and I think you will all wish to join with me in thanking them for having set forth in the judgment and in the order of discharge.—COUNSEL, Muir done so. Mackenzie ; F. Cooper Willis. SOLICITORS, Solicitor to Board of Trade ; Mr. B. G. LAKE seconded the motion, which was agreed to with acMaurice Moses, for Weeks & Co., Birmingham.

clamation. (Reported by P. M. FRANCKE, Barrister-at-Law.]

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 Mongre, Lee, Bolton, & Lee, The Sanctuary, Westminster),

[ocr errors]

.

...

[ocr errors]

...

[ocr errors]

...

...

Mr. Charles Stewart (admitted Hilary, 1873, of Messrs. Markby, Stewart, £9 128. 8d., the plaintiff having claimed £27, which had been reduced by & Co., Coleman-street), and Mr. Philip Witham (admitted 1866, of payment into court by the defendant to £12 108., for which sum the Messrs. Witham, Roskell, Munster, & Weld, of 1, Gray's-inn-square). 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, ANNUAL REPORT.

on the ground that they did not personally take the biddings at the sale (Continued from p. 690.)

or hold an auctioneer's licence, the Council undertook to support an

the taxi

master allowed the fee. (Re Long Vacation. The resolution passed at the general meeting in July, appeal, but, on reconsidera 1897, that in the opinion of this society, the duration of the Long Vacation

Ainsworth, deceased.) should be reduced to eight weeks-first Monday in August to last

Professional Matters.—During the past year five solicitors, who were conSaturday in September—was adopted by the Council, and was communi victed of various criminal offences, have, on the application of the society, cated to the General Council of the Bar, who passed a resolution to the been struck off the roll. Orders for attachment have been obtained effect that it was not desirable that the suggestion of the society should against two unqualified persons for acting as solicitors, and two other be carried into effect. The reform being one that cannot be introduced

cases are now pending before the court. Convictions under section 12 of without a general agreement of opinion in its favour, the Council do not the Solicitors Act, 1874, have been obtained against ten unqualified see their way to proceed further in the matter at the present time.

persons, including solicitors without practising certificates, and in others vited to offer suggestious as to remedies or alterations in the present state certificates which had been allowed to lapse for more than twelve months Parliamentary Committee on Money Lending.–The society having been in- proceedings have been abandoned on payment of costs by the defendants.

Numerous applications for the renewal and taking out of practising of the law with regard to money lending, the subject was referred to a committee, who reported thereon. The principal suggestions put forward have been considered and dealt with according to circumstances. In were that the minimum limit on bills of sale by way of security should be

some cases the certificates were only authorized to issue on payment by raised from £30 to £50; that a bill of sale by way of security should be the applicants of arrears of duty and a fine in addition. Appeals against attested by a solicitor ; that a borrower under a bill of sale repayable at a

the refusal of the Council to grant orders for practising certificates have fixed date or by instalments should be at liberty to redeem at any time; been heard by the Master of the Rolls, but in every case his lordship and that the powers of the High Court and county courts should be de' upheld their decision. The Council have found it necessary to oppose clared and extended so as to enable them to interfere in money lending two applications for restoration to the roll, but the Master of the Rolls transactions when there has been oppression or unfair dealing, and especi- upon hearing the petitioners, and after full inquiry, has found it expedient ally that this relief should be obtained in chambers and without any undue

to grant the applications, imposing, however, certain conditions. The publicity. The report, as adopted by the Council, was communicated to Divisional Court declined to strike off the rolls (upon the motion of the the Committee of the House of Commons.

society) a solicitor who had previously been struck off a colonial roll for Trustee Investments.-Communications having been made to the Lord of the Rolls, the Council have intimated to the Lord Chancellor and the

professional misconduct. In reply to a communication from the Master Chancellor with a view to extending the range of trustee investments, his Master of the Rolls that they would have no objection to section 32 of the lordship appointed a small committee to consider the question, and requested the Council to nominate one of its members for the committee.

Solicitors Act, 1843, being modified, so as to give the court a discretionary The Council nominated Mr. William Williams, and appointed a com

power to relieve, under special circumstances, & solicitor who has been mittee of the Council to consider the subject. This committee's sugges

convicted of an offence under that section from the disability from ever tions were embodied in a report, which w98 communicated to the Lord again practising as a solicitor. The attention of the Council having been Chancellor.

drawn to the increasing practice throughout the county courts, both in General Council of the Bar, dated the 5th of August, 1897, various objectaking proceedings and appearing in county courts in various ways for Conduct of Business in the Queen's Bench Division. In the report of the the metropolis and the provinces, of debt collectors and of so-called trade

protection societies, by their representatives and other unqualified persons, tions were taken to the procedure in the Queen's Bench Division; in par- reward (usually in the form of a commission on the recovery of the debts), ticular, that there was want of method, certainty, and continuity in the constitution and procedure of the courts; that during the time of circuit the Council are now in communication with the provincial law societies to the courts, open in London, were inadequate to deal with the business ;

ascertain how far it is the feeling of the profession generally that the and that the present circuit system was defective. The report was referred practice ought to be prohibited. by the Council of this society to & committee for consideration. While agreeing generally with the allegations of the Bar Council the committee

An Appendix to the report gives the ninth annual report of the made the following additional suggestions-viz., (1) That an official with committee appointed under the Solicitors Act, 1888. practical experience of litigation should be appointed, with the rank of In compliance with the resolution passed by the Council on the 11th of Master of the Supreme Court, whose duty it should be to arrange the January, 1889, the committee present the following report of their cause lists of the Queen's Bench Division under the direction of the Lord proceedings from the 1st of August, 1896 (up to which date their eighth Chief Justice. (2) That this master should arrange the cause lists in report was made), to the 31st of July, 1897, when the committee rose for groups, after consultation with the solicitors of the parties, keeping, so far the vacation. During that period the committee has beld eighty-four as possible, causes of a like character in the same group. (3) That each meetings, of which forty-two were for general business and forty-two of these groups of causes should be assigned to a separate rota of judges were for hearing cases. Twelve cases occupied the whole or part of two in the Queen's Bench Division, selected for the sittings only. (4) That or more sittings each, one case extending to no fewer than eight sittings. particular court rooms should be fixed, in which the trials of each of such During the same period 108 applications have been made to the groups of causes should be conducted. (5) That Divisional Courts should committee. Of these, fourteen were applications by solicitors to have be altogether abolished.

their names removed from the roll at their own request, with a view to Stamp Duties Regulations.-In conjunction with the associated provincial their being called to the bar or for other reasons.

In thirteen cases the law societies the Council have had under consideration the present committee reported in favour of the application, which was thereupon methods of regulating stamp duties, viz. : (1) by Act of Parliament, (2) granted by the Master of the Rolls. The remaining case is under by judicial decision, and (3) by official circular. The last two methods consideration by his lordship. Of the remaining ninety-four applications, 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, committee; 1 was struck out of the list, the respondent having been viz. : (a) Debentures to be redeemed at a premium; (6) Transfers of struck off the roll on another complaint; 1 was dismissed, the applicant mortgages in part repaid when, the mortgagor being a party, the old not appearing; 2 have been adjourned generally ; 19 were heard and proviso for redemption has been released, and a new proviso inserted ; reported on by the committee ; 10 were heard, but the complainants (c) Conveyances in fee farm or sub-leases reserving a rent to a mortgagee failed at the hearing to make out any case, and the parties cousented that by way of substituted security ; (d) Conveyances subject to the payment no report should be made to the court; 6 are awaiting hearing. At the of the whole or part of a chief or ground rent previously created, when date of the last report six cases were awaiting hearing. These have been either the rent or the property is not identical with the original rent or dealt with, as well as two cases which had been adjourned generally, but property, and there is no legal apportionment of the rent. In each of were restored to the list for hearing at the request of the complainants. these cases decisions or regulations have been made upsetting the previ. Of these eight cases four were withdrawn by leave of the committee, one ously understood practice as to stamping. The commissioners recognize was heard and reported on (bringing up the number of cuses heard and that solicitors have cause for complaint on this subject, and at meetings reported on during the year to twenty); one was struck out of the list for that have taken place between the commissioners and the Council and the want of prosecution; one was struck out of the list, the solicitor having associated provincial law societies the commissioners have expressed their been struck off the roll at the instance of the society on the ground of his willingness to consider suggestions for a remedy. A clause for insertion having been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of in one of the Inland Revenue Bills is now under consideration. As imprisonment; and one case was not made out at the hearing, the parties regards stamping debentures, some relief has been already extended by consenting that no report should be made. In two of the twenty cases the commissioners, on the application of the Council, resulting in an heard and reported on, the solicitor was exonerated. In eighteen cases arrangement whereby the extra duty may be paid in one sum, without the committee found that the charges were wholly or partly proved. the necessity of producing each debenture. The commissioners also Seventeen reports have been brought before the court with the result that extended the time for stamping transfers of mortgage of the class men in fifteen cases the solicitors were struck off the roll ; in another the tioned until the 31st of December, 1898.

matter was ordered to stand over until after the Long Vacation ; and in Lifts in the Royal Courts of Justice. The Council have been in correspond - the remaining case the solicitor was ordered to pay the costs. One report ence with the Lord Chancellor in support of an application for lifts in is not yet ripe for hearing by the court. At the date of the last annual that part of the building appropriated to the offices of the Supreme Court. report, two cases had been set down for hearing by the court, but had not

Cases Affecting Solicitors. Since the date of the last annual report the been reached. These have since been dealt with. In one of the cases the following cases have been supported by the Council, viz. : County Court solicitor was struck off the roll, and ordered to pay the costs; and in the Costs.-An appeal from the Malton County Court against a decision of the other the solicitor was ordered to pay the costa. "At the same date the judge allowing on Scale A. the costs of a successful counterclaim of I committee were preparing their reports upon two cases which had been

« PreviousContinue »