Page images


The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter.








[ocr errors]

657 663

........ 729 ............ 729


................. 667



669 664



658 671


VOL. XLII., No 42,

LONDON, AUGUST 20, 1898.
Capital ...

$400,000 Debentures and Debenture Stock


LOANS MADE THEREON. Proposal Forms and full information may be had at the Society's Offices,

The Editor cannot undertake to return rejected contributions, aud W. OSCAR NASH, F.I.A., Actuary.

copies should be kept of all articles sent by writers who are not on MIDLAND RAILWAY HOTELS.

the regular staff of the JOURNAL. LONDON, N.W. (Within Shilling cab fare of Gray's-inn, Inns of Court, Temple Bar, MIDLAND GRAND

Law Courts, dc. Buses to all parts every minute. Close to King's

Cross Metropolitan Ry. Station. The Nero Venetian Rooms are (St. Pancras Station). available for Publicand Private Dinners, Arbitration Meetings, dec.)



Close to Central (Midland) Station.

Excellent Restaurant.


................................. 725 LEGAL NEWS.... LEEDS


In Centre of Town.

For Peak of Derbyshire.


Tennis Lawn to Seashore. Golf.


CREDITORS' NOTIORA.... Tariffs on Application.


728 Telegraphie AddressMidotel.Adelphi “ Turtle" Soup forwarded from Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool, per quart jar 185.;


New ORDERS, &o. per pint jar, 9s. 6d., carriage paid. Speciality for Inralids.



In the Solicitors' Journal.

In the Weekly Reporter. LIMITED.

(BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGE.) Atlas Metal Co. v. Miller SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL £1,000,000. PAID-UP £100,000. Bristol Tramways Co. v. National Attorney-General v Strange

Telephone Co.




Home Marine Insurance Co. v. S nith 651 INSURANCE. TRUSTEESHIPS FOR DEBENTURE-HOLDERS, &c. Attorney-General v. Earl Grey

Life Interest

Reversionery Fisher and Grazebrook's Contract, Re 731 Securities Corporation v. Hand-inJohn y. John

731 Hand Fire and Life Insurance HEAD OFFICE: 49, Chancery-lane, W.C. | CITY OFFICE : 56, Moorgate-street, E.C. Jones & Sons v Scullard

731 Society
Stockport Ragged, Industrial, and Re-

Lumsden v. Burnett......

formatory Schools, Re.


The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Phillips v. The London School Board. In Drawing LEASES or MORTGAGES of

and The Assessment Committee of

Cockerton v. The Same

Birkenhead ...................................... 731 Strangways v. Read.............
To see that the Insurance Covenants include a policy covering the risk of

Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to


WHILE THE bulk of the provisions of the new Vaccination GUARANTEE FUND, LIMITED,

Act, 1898, do not come into force until the 1st of January next, 24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C.

the much-debated “conscience clause” is expressly made to Mortgages Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, without

operate from the 12th inst., on which day the Act received the special valuation and at low rates.

Royal Assent. The present law, therefore, is that no penalty LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE

can be imposed for the neglect to have a child vaccinated if the

parent or other person responsible, within four months from the SOCIETY.

birth of the child, "satisfies two justices or a stipendiary or ESTABLISHED OVER HALF A CENTURY. metropolitan police magistrate in petty sessions that he con

scientiously believes that vaccination would be prejudicial to 10, FLEET STREET, LONDON.

the health of the child,” and within seven days thereafter delivers to the vaccination officer

a certificate by the FREE,

justices or magistrate of such conscientious objaction, SIMPLE,

Experience will show whether magistrates will be easily "satisfied” as to this very important matter; it does not appear that they can have any evidence to act upon except the ipse dixit of the conscientious objector, tested perhaps by something in the nature of cross-examination from the bench. It is to be noticed, however, that the objection must be that the operation will be projudicial to health in the particular case; no mere general objection to vaccination or to the compulsory system, and no elevated ideas of the liberty of the

subject, will suffice. As to children born before the passing of AND

thə Act, the Legislature has made special provision : in such SECURE.

cases the four months' period is to run from the 12th inst., and

not from the date of the birth. One consequence of the Act, of FUNDS - £3,000,000. INCOME

$390,000. course, is that no proceedings for penalties under the VacciaaYEARLY NEW BUSINESS - £1,000,000. BUSINESS IN FORCE - £11,700,000. tion Acts can be taken in respect of any child until the four

months' period has expired, for until then there will have been The Right Hon. Lord HALSBURY (Lord High Chancellor of England).

no default in complying with the Acts.
The Hon. Mr. Justice KEKEWICH.
The Right Hon. Sir JAMES PARKER DEANE, Q.C., D.C.L.

THE DECISION of KEKEWICH, J., in the case of Re Furber Bacon, His Honour Judge.

(reported ante, p. 718), sets at rest any doubt upon the question Mathew, The Hon. Mr. Justice. Davey, The Right Hon. Lord. Meek, A. Grant, Esq. (Devizes).

whether a mortgagee's solicitor is entitled to charge the scale Deane, The Right Hon. Sir James Parker, Mellor, The Right Hon. John w., Q.C., fee for negotiating a mortgage when the proposed security

Q.C., D.C.L.
Ellis-Danvers, Edmund Henry, Esq. Mills, Richard, Esq.

does not consist exclusively of freehold, copyhold, or leasehold Finch, Arthur J., Esq.

Morrell, Frederic P., Esq.(Oxford).
Frere, Geo. Edgar, Esq.
Pennington, Richard, Esq.

property." The solicitor in the case in question, who was act. Garth, The Right Hon. Sir Richard, Q.C. Rowcliffe, Edward Lee, Esq. Healey, C. E. H. Chadwyck, Esq., Q.C.

ing also for the mortgagor, and negotiated advances from some Saltwell, Wm Henry, Esq. Johnson, Char 8 P.. j Williams, C. Reynolds, Esq.

of his other clients upon the security of the mortgagor's Kekewich, The Hon. Mr. Justice.

Williams, Romer, Esq. Ludlow, The Right Hon. Lord.

reversionary interest in certain property consisting principally Williams, William, Esq. Masterman, Henry Chauncy, Esq.

of personalty and a fund in court. The solicitor charged for

[blocks in formation]

the negotiation according to the scale; but upon taxation the tive enterprize, and two to extravagance and gambling. The taxing-master disallowed the charges, being of opinion that the liabilities in the ordinary trading cases were swollen by a wellfollowing words in Schedule I., Part I., of the General Order under known banking failure in the south of England. The speculative the Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881-namely, “Mortgageo's cases show a total liability of nearly a million pounds. solicitor for negotiating loan,” were by the context restricted to With reference to these Mr. JOHN SMITH, the Inspector-General loans upon freehold, copyhold, or leasehold property." in Bankruptcy, calls attention to the hopelessly sanguine view Upon a summons by the solicitor to review the taxing-master's which the debtors take of the value of their assets, these concertificate, KEKEWICH, J., dissented from the taxing-master's sisting as a rule of "unworkable concessions or unsaleable shares view, and decided that the solicitor was entitled to charge in abortive companies.” The debtors' estimates of value were the scale fee for negotiating the loans notwithstanding that the upwards of £600,000, whilst the probable results of realization mortgages were not exclusively of " freehold, copyhold, or lease- will not exceed £86,000. Seeing that one such debtor estimated hold property." This decision of the court, so far as it goes, his assets at over £400,000, and the bankruptcy officials estimate confirms the opinion of the Council of the Incorporated Law them at nil, this disparity is readily accounted for. In reference Society, expressed during recent years, that the negotiating to deeds of arrangement, the report refers to the circumstance scales apply to all descriptions of property, including, for that no security is required from trustees under such deeds, nor instance, besides reversionary interests in personalty, life policies, is there any provision corresponding to that of section 85 of rates, stock-in-trade, goodwill, patents, ships, &c., but excepting the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, under which the trustee vacates his vendor's charges under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act or office upon a receiving order being made against him. As a any other private or public Act under which the same are paid result it is stated that creditors suffer loss through the defalcaby the purchaser.

tion of trustees, and, when bankruptcy supervenes, they are

helpless unless they take steps to have the defaulting trustee SECTION 22 of the Patents Act, 1883, which provides a remedy removed. Moreover, no machinery exists for enabling trustees country, has been at length put in operation. By the section to the bankruptcy department, and so secure a complete disit is enacted that if, on the petition of any person interested, it is

charge from their trust. proved to the Board of Trade that, by reason of the default of a patentee to grant licences on reasonable terms, (a) the patent is not being worked in the United Kingdom, or (b) the reason THE BANKRUPTCY report also calls attention to the remarkable able requirements of the public with respect to the invention discrepancy which exists between the total number of adjudicacannot be supplied, or (o) any person is prevented from working tions and the number of bankrupts who obtain their discharge. or using to the best advantage an invention of which he is The adjudications under the Act of 1883 down to the end of possessed, the Board of Trade may order the patentees to grant 1897 amount to 59,903, while the applications for discharge licences on such terms as to royalties or otherwise as the board have been only 13,568. As these applications include the cases may think just. Hitherto the difficulty of putting this section where the discharge has been refused or suspended for periods in force has made it inoperative. Previously to this year there which are still current, it is obvious that, after making allowance were only four applications under it and none of these were for deaths and for cases in which the adjudication has been proceeded with. “An application has now been made to the annulled, there must, at the present time, be a vast number of Board of Trade by Meesrs. LEVINSTEIN, of Manchester, who are undischarged bankrupts. Many of those are carrying on busithe possessors of inventions for the manufacture of dye ness under their own or under assumed names. It has been stuffs. The use of these inventions depends upon materials the suggested that in order to protect the trading community all patents for which have been taken out by German manufac undischarged bankrupts should be required to attend once a turers in this country, though they are not worked here. Messrs. year at their respective courts to be examined as to their dealings LEVINSTEIN accordingly have proceeded under clause (c) of the in the previous year. But this would be a measure of great above section and have obtained an order requiring the patentees hardship, and, as the report points out, the Legislature would to grant them a licence to use the patented inventions. A not be likely to favour it. The danger incident to trading by curious feature in the matter is that in Germany the inventions undischarged bankrupts is probably more fancied than real, and are, it is stated, free, one of the patents having been refused there is already in existence the provision of section 31 of the in that country and the other revoked for want of novelty. It is Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which makes it a misdemeanour for an also stated that the present inquiry lasted eleven days, at a undischarged bankrupt to obtain credit to the extent of £20 total expense to all parties of not less than £4,000. It is doubt without giving notice of his circumstances. So far as title to ful, therefore, whether the experiment of proceeding under the property acquired after the bankruptcy is concerned, the safety section will be repeated. It has been for some time realized of persons dealing with the bankrupt is secured by the doctrine that a shorter and more efficacious mode of dealing with patents of Cohen v. Mitchell (38 W. R. 551, 25 Q. B. D. 262). Until the which are being kept dormant is required. "In France a trustee intervenes any disposition of personal property, including patentee is liable to have his patent revoked if he does not use leaseholds (R. Clayton and Barclay's Contract, 43 W. R. it for two years after it has been granted, and in Germany he is 549; 1895, 2 Ch. 212), which the bankrupt has acquired under a similar liability after three years. A provision of this since the bankruptcy, in favour of a person dealing® bona kind ought to be substituted for section 22.

fide and for value, although such person has knowledge of the bankruptcy, is valid. A doubt has been suggested

whether this applies to dealings not incident to the carryTHE REPORT just issued by the Board of Trade on bankruptcy ing on of a business by the bankrupt; and, although in 1897 contains some satisfactory figures. Both in the number Cohen v. Mitchell does not seem to furnish any ground for the of receiving orders and in the total amount of liabilities there doubt, the Board of Trade are anxious to have the question has been å steady annual decrease since 1893. In that year in a case where a bankrupt had sold a share devolving upon

raised. An opportunity for so doing had apparently occurred the receiving orders were 4,874, and the aggregate liabilities £7,492,367; the corresponding numbers for 1897 were 4,074 chaser's claim. Upon the issue of the writ, however, the claim ånd £5,678,498. As compared with 1896 there is also a remarkable increase in the value of the assets. While for 1896 was withdrawn, and the bankrupt's share became available for and 1897 the total liabilities were respectively £5,902, 138 and, value, and probably this accounts for the early termination of

his creditors. The share, it seems, had been sold at an underas just mentioned, £5,678,498, the value of the assets was £2,334,251 and £2,756,079-an increase of £421,828. There the proceedings. But the department look forward to another has been a similar decrease in the number of deeds of arrange- opportunity of testing the generality of the doctrine of Cohen v. ment and in the aggregate liabilities under such deeds. The

Mitchell. failures in which the unsecured liabilities exceeded £20,000 were thirty-two in number. Of these Dine are classed as A COMPLETE answer might be found (says a correspondent) ordinary trading cases, eighteen as due to financial and specula- to the charge of the law's delay in the proceedings in an action

of Deighton v. Liverpool Reversionary Co. (Limited), heard before TURNING to specific changes of recent times, Master BYRNE, J., on the 29th ult. The action was brought by the MACDONELL gives some valuable information as to the provisions vendor for specific performance of a contract to purchase a of the Declaration of Paris. It is interesting to note Nelson's reversionary interest in a legacy of £1,000. The writ was opinion of privateering, which he quotes. "The conduct of all issued in the Liverpool District Registry on Wednesday, the privateers is, as far as I have seen, so near piracy that I only 27th of July, and tho action came on for hearing, and the final wonder any civilized nation can allow them.” Now that belliorder was made by BYRNE, J., on the 29th of July. There was gerents not bound by the declaration have shown no disposi.. an admitted statement of facts on which a question of some tion to depart from it, it may be anticipated that privateering interest with respect to the rights of transferees of mortgages will never be revived. More controversy exists with regard to was brought for the decision of the court. The facts were that the protection of enemies' goods in neutral bottoms, and W. by a deed dated the 24th of November, 1897, mortgaged Master MACDONELL is by no means confident as to the result in his roversionary_interest in a legacy of £1,000 to two mort- a future war in which this country may be engaged of her gagees, A. and H. On the 1st of January, 1898, he assigned abandonment of the right of capturing enemies' goods wherhis equity of redemption to D., the plaintiff in the action, the over found which she had previously maintained. The fact is deed of agrignment containing express provisions that D. should that the opinion or interest of civilized nations generally has pot in any way be personally liable to W. or his representatives compelled the adoption of the balf-way principle, " free for any money charged on the reversionary interest. On the ships, free goods, " but it is not advanced enough to go the 1st of April, 1898, D. took a transfer from A. and H. of as far as British interests and humanity alike require, and to their mortgage, the interest on this, due on the 25th of March, declare all private property at sea free however carried. And then being six days in arrear. In Jupe D., claiming to have the according to Master MACDONELL there is no chance of this result right to exercise the statutory power of sale by virtue of the being reached. “Exemption from capture at sea,” he says, “is mortgage, contracted to sell the property mortgaged to the probably for a long time to come out of the question. Such defendants. This contract the defendants refused to carry exemption would be in war to the supreme advantage of out, on the ground, first, that D. being the owner of the England, which stands to lose so much. "It would, therefore, equity of redemption, the mortgage had merged upon his be to the disadvantage of our opponents. We cannot hope that taking a transfer, and therefore that the power of sale was other nations, knowing our weak spot, will relinquish this right. no longer kept alive; or secondly, oven assuming that It is unfortunate, after all, that there is no longer a law of the mortgage was kept alive and with it the mortgagees' various nature to which we can appeal against the dictates of selfremedies, yet that the power of sale had not arisen, inasmuch as interest. when the same person became debtor and creditor it could not be said that interest was any longer due, and so interest could not be in arrear and unpaid within the meaning of section 20 of THE WIFE of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, by Royal Warrant the Conveyancing Act, 1881, so as to give the right to exercise the dated the 22nd of December, 1876, “80 long as she continued power of sale. At the hearing, having regard to the cases of his wife or remained his widow," obtained the style, rank, and Thorne v. Cann (1895, A. C. 11), and Liquidation Estates, 8c., Co. precedence of a baroness. But the warrant expressly provided .v. Willoughby (1898, A. O. 321), it was conceded that the mortgage that nothing therein contained should be deemed or construed and the power of sale were kept alive in the holder of the equity to authorize or permit any of the children of a Lord of Appeal of redemption by his taking the transfer, and reliance was in Ordinary to assume or use the prefix of “Honourable," or placed on behalf of the purchaser on the second point. BYRNE, to be entitled to the style, rank, or procedence of the children J., however, held that the interest, which was six days in arrear of a baron. This last-mentioned provision is revoked by a at the date of the transfer on the 1st of April, became more and Royal Warrant, dated the 30th of March last, but only published more in arrear as time went on, and that therefore in June it was in last Tuesday's London Gazette, which.confers on the children two months in arrear and unpaid, and that the mortgages could of all Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, past, prosent, and future, therefore exercise his power of sale under the provisions of the appointed and created Lords of Parliament for life, the style 20th section of the Conveyancing Act, 1881.

and title enjoyed by the children of hereditary barons, with rank

and precedence next to and immediately after the younger THE JULY number of the Journal of the Royal United Service created, and immediately before all baronets. The Society of

children of hereditary barons now created or hereafter to be Institution contains the lecture on recent changes in the rights the Baronetage are up in arms against this grant of precedence, and duties of belligerents and neutrals delivered at the institu- which they allege to be in contravention of the decree of James tions last May by Master MACDONELL. The lecture was I. dated the 28th of May, 1612. It will be interesting to see arranged for bofore the outbreak of the recent war, but it was what steps, beyond a petition to the Crown, they will adopt to given at a time when that outbreak had made the subject one test this momentous question. of keen interest. As a matter of fact neutrals have not been affected in the way that was anticipated, and the war will probably be found to have left international law pretty much as it found it. But the interest of the lecture does not depend upon any such transitory considerations. Master MAODONELL takes a

THE LIABILITIES OF CARRIAGE OWNERS. bold line at the start by calling attention to the change which has An important decision was given last week by the Lord rosulted from the disappearance of the “law of nature.” In former Chief Justice in a case of Jones & Sons v. Scullard (reported days jurists thought they had in this law an infallible authority. elsewhere), dealing with the respective liabilities of the owner Their faith is an exploded superstition. The law of nature was of a carriage and of the livery stable keeper who supplied a creature of their own imagination. “Learned men,” says the him with a man to drive it, for the negligence of such driver. lecturer, "seemed to project their voices some distance from them On Jubilee Day, the 22nd of June, 1897, the defendant's selves, and their voices came back to them as the utterance of the brougham ran into, and did damage to, the plaintiffs' shop in law of nature.” Something more tangible was found in the Roman Holloway-road, London. The horse between the shafts of the law, but as an engine of modern development this also must now brougham belonged to the defendant, and so did the harness, be admitted to be useless. The result is that much which is to but the coachman on the box, though wearing the defendant's be found in the authorities on international law is obsolete. It livery, had been hired by him from a livery stablo kooper. belongs to circumstances and to modes of thought which have Under the contract with the livery stable keeper the man had vanished. International law, says Master MACDONELL, though driven the defendant's carriage for some months continuously, it has no recognized organ or mouthpiece, "advances—sometimes but he had only driven the horse which was in the shafts on the rapidly; never more rapidly than to-day. By few expounders day of the accident, and which was, in point of fact, fresh of international law is sufficient notice taken of this element of from the country, some two or three times. Various acts of change. And so there is an international law known to soldiers, negligence were alleged, some of them relating to the manner diplomatists, and men of affairs, and another partly obsolete, but in which the horse was harnessed, and it was proved that at still taught in books."

the time of the accident the coachman had lost control of the

horse. The jury found that the coachman was guilty of and the horses and driver to the job-master, but the horses are negligence. But in addition to denying the negligence, the kept and fed at the stables of the hirer. This state of facts is defendant had pleaded that the coachman was not his servant, by no means uncommon, the plan being adopted by persons who and it was, by agreement between the parties, left to his lord- are staying in London for a short time, or who do not care to ship to decide this question. His lordship decided that the run the risk of being short of a horse on account of lameness or coachman was the defendant's servant, and that the defendant other casualty. The question of liability in such a case would was therefore liable to the plaintiff for the damage done. be a very nice one. If the considerations which prevailed in

Cases of this kind often give rise to some difficulty, and there Jones & Sons v. Scullard are to prevail, the fact that the hirər has has been some conflict of opinion among the judges. The point control of the horses-the feeding, shoeing, &c., of thom-would at which the liability of the livery stable keeper ends and that suffice to fix him with liability. This seems reasonable, and it of the hirer begins is not always easy to ascertain. The present is also in accordance with the more modern decisions which case seems well beyond this dividing line. The Lord Chief were regarded by the Lord Chief Justice as conflicting with Justice, in his judgment, dwelt upon the circumstances that the Laugher v. Pointer (5 B. & C. 547) and with Quarman v. Burnett birer evinced approval of the coachman by continuing to accept (ubi supra). One of these cases is Rourke v. White Moss Colliery his services; that the horse and harness belonged to the hirer, Co. (L. R. 2 O. P. 205). The defendants in that case were col. and that the coachman had only had the opportunity of driving liery owners who employed a contractor to sink a shaft in their colthe horse and learning its peculiarities two or three times liery. They lent to the contractor for the purpose of doing the work belore.

a fixed engine at the mouth of the shaft and an engine-driver. The principles are clear and well established. It is in the The latter continued to be paid by the defendants. In the application of them to each set of circumstances that the difficulty course of the work the plaintiff was injured in consequence of arises. The liability depends, not on the ownership or use of the negligence of the engine-driver. It was held, per COCKthe carriage, but upon the relation of master and servant. BURN, C.J., MELLISH, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ., that the Thus a man who hires a cab is not liable for the negligence of engine-driver was at the time the servant of the contractor and the cabman, nor is a man who bires an equipage for not of the defendants. Similarly in Donovan v. Laing and Others the day, week, or month liable for the negligence of (1893, 1 Q. B. 629) it was held that the owners of a crane, who the driver. Similarly it has been held that the man who hires lent it, with a man to work it, to a firm of wharfingers for the horses and coachman for his own carriage is free from liability. purpose of loading a ship, were not liable for the negligence of In this respect a distinction has been established between fixed the man, committed while acting under the orders of the and moveable property. A man is bound to see that his fixed wharfingers. The two sets of decisions are difficult to reconcile, property is so used and managed that other persons are not for there seems to be no difference in principle between the injured, but in the case of moveable property it is negligence of the driver of a horse and that of the driver of a otherwise for reasons too obvious to need indicating. A man steam-engine in considering the liability of the person who who has sent his gun to a shop to be repaired cannot, bires from another for a time the benefit of their services. for example, be held responsible for the negligence of a shop-boy who, on his way from the shop to deliver the gun, fires it off and injures a passer-by. The liability, in fact, depends upon the principle that a master is liable for the

REVIEWS. Legligent acts of his servant done in the course of his employ

BOOKS RECEIVED. ment, and upon the further principle that a servant, though in the general employment of one person, may yet be considered, Income Tax Acts, with Cases of Illustration, Explanatory Notes, and

Pratt's Income Tax; being a Full Analysis of the Provisions of the for the purpose of establishing liability, to be in the particular

a Copious Index. Sixth Edition. By JOSEPH HAWORTH REDMAN, employment of another. The liability of the person in whose Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Shaw & Sons ; Butterworth & Co. Price particular employment he is claimed to be is determined by the 78.6d. extent of the control exercised by such person, and also in a certain measure upon the opportunity for selection. In Quarman JONES, Barrister-at-Law. Effingham Wilson.

A Practical Guide to the Liquor Licensing Acts. By W. HUGH v. Burnett (6 M. & W. 499, at p. 509), PARKE, B., says : " Upon The principle that qui facit per alium facit per se, the master is 1893 to 1897 inclusive; with Table of Cases and Titles and full

The Justice of the Peace Digest of Cases Reported during the years responsible for the acts of his servant; and that person is References to the Law Reports. Compiled by M. CAMPBELL-JOHNundoubtedly liable who stood in the relation of master to the STON, Esq., Ba ster-at-Law. Shaw & Sons. wrongdoer-he who had selected him as his servant, from the

Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. Published under knowledge of or belief in his skill and care, and who could remove the Authority of the Council. Editor, Captain H. GARBETT, R.N. him for misconduct, and whose orders he was bound to receive (Retired). July, 1898. J. J. Keliher & Co. and obey."

The facts of that case, which is one of the leading authorities on the subject, are as follows. Two ladies who owned a carriage were accustomed to hire from a job-mistress a coach

CORRESPONDENCE. man and a pair of horses for use in their carriage. They always had the same coachman. The job-mistress had in fact only one

SEARCHES IN PARISH REGISTERS. coachman regularly employed. The ladies did not pay the man

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] any wages, but were in the habit of giving him a gratuity each Sir,—Can you or any of your readers who have experience in such time he drove them. They also supplied bim with a coat and matters refer me to any cases bearing on the following point ? hat for his use while he was driving them. The coat and hat

The Act 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86, s. 35, enacts “That every rector, were kept in the hall of the ladies' house, and the man before vicar, or curate, and every registrar, registering officer, and secretary, and after each drive had to go into the house to change. One who shall have the keeping for the time being of any register books ciay while he was in the house the horses ran away and did damage. searches to be made of any register book in his keeping, and shall Iu an action brought against the ladies, PARKE, B., held that give a copy, certified under his hand, of any entry or entries in the there was no evidence to go to the jury. The only suggestion of same on payment of the fee hereinafter mentioned (that is to say) for particular employment or control in that case seems to have been every search extending over a period not more than one year the sum tuat the man had to go into the house to fetch his hat and coat. of one shilling, and sixpence additional for every additional year, and PARKE, B., dismissed this point by observing that the man ought the sum of two shillings and sixpence for every single certificate.” not to have left his horses unattended, and was not under the

I have recently had to make a general search of a Middlesex county circumstances bound to obey the order of the ladies if any such the whole day, and I was treated with great civility and charged &

parish church register which covers about 200 years, which took me order had been given.

fee of 108. only. The recent decision of the Lord Chief Justice suggests another I next was instructed to search the register of a London church, set of circumstances which will, in all probability, arise. That and I wrote asking what the fee for a general search would be; by a is, the case where the carriage and harness belong to the hirer mistake the letter was addressed to the rector of a church of some

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]

R. 12.

what similar name, and I got a reply from the parish clerk of that mansion, the company shall not without, or otherwise than in accordance church saying the fee for a general search would be 10s.

with, the consent of the owner, lessee, and occupier of such park, I subsequently applied to the parish clerk of the first mentioned pleasure-grounds, or mansion, place any work above ground on such London church, who claimed 18. for the first year, and sixpence for public road.” By section 13: "Where any landowner or other person is

liable for the repair of any street or public road (notwithstanding that every subsequent year, and on my expressing surprise, the rector came

the same is dedicated to the public), the company shall not place any up and insisted on this charge.

work under, in, upon, over, along, or across such street or public road, If his contention is right (and certainly the actual words seem

exept with the consent of such landowner or other person, in addition to bear out his claim), the result is that I could not have searched the consent of the body baving the control of such street or public road, the register at the Middlesex church I have mentioned, if the rector where, under this Act, such last-mentioned consent is required ; provided had insisted on the strict legal fees, for less than £15 (which woull that where the company places a telegraph across or over any street or have been practically prohibitive), thus :

public road they shall not place it so low as to stop, hinder, or interfere Birthe (say), 200 years

£5 06

with the passage for any purpose whatsoever along the street or public Marriages (say),


5 0 6

road." Sections 28 and 30 of the Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. Deaths (say), 200 years

Ő 0 6

78), were also referred to, and it was submitted that the defendants were

not entitled to proceed with their works without the plaintiffs' consent. £15 1

Upon behalf of the defendants it was submitted that the plaintiffs were

6 and in the case of the London church the fee will no doubt be more.

not persons who were responsible for the repair of the whole road, and

therefore their consent was not required. North London Railway v. Great But this is not all; the rector contends that my search must be Northern Railway (26 W. R. 485, 11 Q. B. D. 40) shewed that the made on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday between the hours of 10.30 plaintiffs' right must be absolute. If the contention upon behalf of the and 12, so that he limits “all reasonable times” to four and a-half plaintiffe, that any person responsible for the repair of any portion of the hours a week, spread over three several days, at which pace it is not highway was a person whose consent had to be obtained by the defendants, likely that my task will be rapidly accomplished.

they would also have to obtain under section 13 of the Act of 1863 the GEORGE WALLIS BEAL. consent of gas and water companies.

PHILLIMORE, J., said that gas and water companies were in a different position to the plaintiffs. The order would be that, upon the defendants undertaking to apply for leave to withdraw a summons which they had

taken out before the Bristol magistrates, and undertaking in the event of CASES OF THE WEEK.

the plaintiffs succeeding at the trial to make such provisions for the

security of the plaintiffs as might have been made on an application for Before the Vacation Judge.

the plaintiffs' consent, the action to be set down at once without pleadings.

Pleadings to be delivered in the Long Vacation if desired. No further BROWN v. BROWN. 17th August.

order except that the costs of an ex parte motion made before North, J., CONTEMPT OP Court-ATTACHMENT_LENGTH OF NOTICE OF Motion, for an interim injunction, which would now be discharged, and of this DIVORCE Rules, R. 115 – RULES OF SUPREME Court, 1883, ORD. 63, motion be costs in the action.- COUNSEL, Mulligan, Q.C., and G. D. Pepys

(Stewart Smith with them); Roskill. SOLICITORS, Warwick Webb; W. E. L.

Gaine. This was a motion on behalf of Catherine Brown for an order that

[Reported by J. E. ALDOUS, Barrister-at-Law.] she might be at liberty to issue a writ of attachment against her husband, Frederick William Brown, for contempt in disobeying an order of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division dated the 2nd of August, 1898, and in not delivering Doris Clements Brown, the child of the marriage, to

CASES OF LAST SITTINGS, the said Catherine Brown, which child had been, and still was, in his custody and control, but the legal custody of which child had been com

Court of Appeal. mitted to the said Catherine Brown by the said order. Upon behalf of the husband the preliminary objection was taken that rule 115 of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. EARL GREY. No. 1, 29th July and 10th Divorce Rules bad not been complied with. By that rule the notice of

Augúst. motion must be served four clear days previously to the hearing of the INLAND REVENUE-ESTATE DUTY--GIFT INTER Vivos-POSSESSION ASSUMED motion. The notice of motion was dated the 13th of August, so that

TO ENTIRE EXCLUSION OF DONOR-INTEREST RESERVED-POWER OF RBthere had not been compliance with the rule. In support of the applica

VOCATION-CUSTOMS AND INLAND Revenue Act, 1881 (44 Vict. c. 12), 8. tion it was submitted that ord. 63, r. 12, of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1883, applied, and that there was therefore jurisdiction to hear the

38 (2) (a) (c), as AMENDED BY CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUB Act, 1889 motion. Further, by the Long Vacation notice printed at the back of

(52 Vict. c. 7), s. 11-FINANCE Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), ss. the Vacation Cause List, papers were to be left at the Chancery Registrars'

1, 2. Office before one o'clock on the Monday previous to the day on which

This was an appeal from the Divisional Court (46 W. R. 251). By a the application was intended to be made, and that regulation had been deed dated the 19th of October, 1885, Henry, third Earl Grey (since complied with.

deceased), transferred to his nephew, Albert Grey, now fourth earl, his PAILLIMORE, J., said that the notice at the back of the cause list was estates in Northamptonshire, including the mansion-house of Howick good as to filing papers, but it did not apply to the length of the notice and its appurtenances and the effects therein, subject to an annual rentof motion. The matter must stand over till Wednesday next. The charge of £4,000 in favour of the third earl, issuing out of all the property motion must be dismissed and a fresh notice served for Wednesday next. transferred other than the mansion-house and its appurtenances and the -COUNSEL, Roskill; Grazebrook. SOLICITORS, Scott, Lawson, f Palmer, for effects therein. The deed provided that the mansion-house, &c., should Arthur Willey, Leeds ; Emmet f Co., for C. Leatham ý Co., Wakefield. be held by the fourth earl in trust to permit the third earl to occupy and [Reported by J. E. ALDOUS, Barrister-at-Law.]

enjoy the same as theretofore. By the same deed the fourth earl

covenanted (1) to pay certain annuities; (2) to pay all mortgages and BRISTOL TRAMWAYS CO. v. NATIONAL TELEPHONE CO. 17th August. other charges on the land, and all interest then or thereafter due under TRAMWAY COMPANY—CONSENT TO PLACING OF WORK BY TELEPHONE Com- house'; (5) to deliver farm or garden produce required for the use of the

them; (3) to pay the rent-charge of £4,000; (4) to keep up the mansionPANY_TELEGRAPH ACT, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 112), ss. 9, 12, 13.

household at Howick; (6) to pay the funeral expenses, debts, &c., of the This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Bristol Tramways third earl; (7) not to sell or dispose of certain of the lands; and (8) at and Carriage Co. (Limited), against the National Telephone Co. (Limited), request of the third earl to produce receipts and vouchers for payments for an injunction restraining the defendant company, its agents and made under clauses (1), (2), (4), or (6). It was also provided that in the servants, until the trial of the action or further order, from placing, event of Albert Grey, now fourth earl, dying in the lifetime of the third except with the consent of the plaintiff company, any work under, in, earl, or of any breach by the fourth earl of any covenant on his part, that upon, over, alovg, or across so much of the street or public road known as it should be lawful for the third earl to revoke the deed either wholly or St. Augustine's Bridge in the City of Bristol as lies between the rails of in part. By a deed dated the 26th of September, 1894, the third earl, in the plaintiffs' tramway or within eighteen inches from the outside rail on consideration of £5,000, released the rent-charge of £4,000, and also each side. In support of the application sections 9, 12, and 13 of the released the fourth earl from the covenant to retain unsold the lands Telegraph Act, 1863, were relied upon. By section 9 of the Telegraph named in the 7th clause of the covenant in the deed of 1885, as well as Act, 1863, “The company shall not place à telegraph under any street from the power of revocation reserved in the same deed. The third earl within the limits of the district over which the authority of the Metro- died on the 9th of October, 1894. The average net income of the politan Board of Works extends, or of any city or municipal borough or property comprised in the deed of the 19th of October, 1885, was before, town corporate, or of any town having a population of thirty thousand in as well as after, the 26th of September, 1894, very considerably in excess babitants or upwards (according to the latest census), except with the con- of £4,000. The fourth earl paid estate duty upon the value of the Eent of the bodies baving the control of the streets within such respective mansion-house of Howick and the effects therein only. The information limits." By section 12: “ The company shall not place a telegraph over, claimed that estate duty was payable upon the value of the whole of the along, or across a street or public road, or a post in or upon a street or property comprised in the deed of the 19th of October, 1885, as property public road, except with the consent of the body having the control of such passing on the death of the third Earl Grey within the meaning of street or public road ; and where a public road passes through or by the sections 1 and 2 (1) (c) of the Finance Act, 1894, and having regard to ride of any park or pleasure-grounds, and where a public road crosses by section -38 of the Customs and Iuland Revenue Act, 1881, as amended mcans of a bridge or viaduct, or abuts on any ornamental water belonging by section 11 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889. Section 2 to any park or pleasure-grounds, and where a public road crosses or(i) (2) of the Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30) provides that property abuts on a private drive through any park or pleasure-grounds, or to any passing on the death of the deceased, which is by section 1 declared to

« PreviousContinue »