Page images

The New Venetian Rooms are

[ocr errors]




VOL. XLII., No. 44.

The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. 24, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, W.C.

ESTABLISHED 1853. Capital ...


LONDON, SEPTEMBER 3, 1898. Debentures and Debenture Stock


LOANS MADE THEREON. Proposal Forms and full information me, le had at the Society's offices.

The Editor cannot undertake to retura rejected contributions, aud W. 08CAR 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, do. Buses to all parts every minute. Close to King's (St. Pancras Station). available for Publicand Private Dinners, Arbitration Meetings, dc.) Cross Metropolitan Ry. Station.



Close to Central (Midland) Station.

Excellent Restaurant.
CURRENT TOPICS ............................. 745 LEGAL N&W 8

..... 749 LEEDS

In Centre of Town.

............... 750 DERBY


For Peak of Derbyshire.

Tennis Lawn to Seashore. Golt.



751 Tariffs on Application.

Telegraphic Address

"Midotel." Adelphi "Turtle" Boup forwarded from Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool, per quart jar 188.; LAW SOCIETIES ................... ........... 749 PUBLIC GENERAL STATUTES, per pint jar, 9s. 6d., carriage paid. Speciality for Invalids.


Cases Reported this Week.

Oppenheim v. Mackenzie

............ 743

(CASES OF Lasr Sittings.) SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL £1,000,000. PAID-UP • £100,000.

The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (Appellants) v.


Leslie (Surveyor of Taxes) (Respondent)

HEAD OFFICE : 49, Chancery-lane, W.C. | CITY OFFICE: 56, Moorgate-street, E.C.

The list of fifty-two cases which made up the paper of the

Vacation Judge on Wednesday included Oppenheim v. Mackenzie IMPORTANT TO SOLICITORS

(reported elsewhere), in which an attempt was made to obtain an In Drawing LEASES or MORTGAGES of LICENSED PROPERTY

such an injunction can be granted is now well established. To see that the Insurance Covenants include a policy covering the risk of

Under the Judicature Acts an injunction may be granted in all LOSS OR FORPRITURE OF THE LICENSR. Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to cases in which it shall appear to the cjurt to be just or corTHE LICENSES INSURANCE CORPORATION AND venient, and no limitation is placed upon this power. At the GUARANTEE FUND, LIMITED,

same time, since the question of the libel must ultimately como 24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C.

before a jury, the courts have been reluctant to do anything Mortgages Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, without which may have the effect of prejudging the matter, and the special valuation and at low rates.

rule has been laid down that tho jurisdiction is "only to be

exercised in the clearest cases, where any jury would say that LEGAL ASD GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE the matter complained of was libellous, and where, if the jury SOCIETY.

did not so find, the court would set aside the verdict as un. ESTABLISHED OVER HALF A CENTURY.

reasonable" (Coulson v. Coulson, 3 Times L. R. 846 ; Bonnard v.

Perryman, 39 W. R. 435 ; 1891, 2 Ch. 269). This assumes, of 10, FLEET STREET, LONDON.

course, that no special defence, such as privilege, is set up. Ia

the case before PAILLIMORE, J., it was held that the plaintiff's FREE,

case was not sufficiently clear to justify the intervention of the SIMPLE,

court, and the injunction accordingly was refused.








[ocr errors]

The metropolitan police magistrates have felt some doubt as to the administration in their courts of the “conscience clause" of the new Vaccination Act. The certificate of conscientious objection which is to exempt the objector from the ordinary penalties for failure to have a child vaccinated is to be given if the objector "satisfies two justices or a stipendiary or

metropolitan police magistrate in pötty sessions that he conAND

scientiously believes that vaccination would be projudicial to SECURE.

the health of the child." One learned magistrate recently

suggested the view that he and bis brethren in the London FUNDS • £3,000,000. INCOME

courts had no jurisdiction to grant the certificate at all, on the

£390,000. YEARLY NEW BUSINESS - 1,000,000. BUSINESS IN FORCE - £17,700,000 ground that they did not sit "ia potty sessions." Obviously the

Act assumes that they do so sit; and even if the assumption wera The Right Hon. Lord HALSBURY (Lord High Chancellor of England).

incorrect this would hardly be sufficient to withhold the jurisThe Hon. Mr. Justice KEKEWICH.

diction clearly intended to be given to the London magistrates The Right Hon. Sir James PARKER DEANE, Q.C., D.C.L. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Esq.

by Parliament, and so, in effect, to exclude the metropolis RICHARD PENNINGTON, Esq.

from the operation of the Act. But this objection to the Bacon, His Honour Judge.

jurisdiction, even if it were otherwise well founded, seems Mathew, The Hon. Mr. Justice. Davey, The Right Hon. Lord. Meek, A. Grant, Esq.(Devizes).

to be removed by the application of the Interpretation Deane, The Right Hon. Sir James Parker, Mellor, The Right Hon. John W., Q.C., Act, 1889, s. 13, which defines, not, it is true,

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

sessions,” but “petty sessional court" to include "the Lord Finch, Arthur J., Esq.

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

Mayor of the City of London and any alderman of that city and any Garth, The Right Hon. Sir Richard, Q.C. Rowcliffe, Edward Lee, Esq.

metropolitan or borough police magistrate or other stipendiary Healey, C. E. H. Chadwyck, Esq., Q.C. Saltwell, Wm Henry, Esq. Johnson, Charles P., Esq. Williams, C. Reynolds, Esq.

magistrate when sitting at a court house or place at which he is Kekewich, The Hon. Mr. Justice. Williams, Romer, Esq.

authorized by law to do alone any act authorized to be done by Ludlow, The Right Hon. Lord.

Williams, William, Esq. Masterman, Henry Chauncy, Esq.

more than one justice of the peace.” It cannot seriously be



as real

doubted that a metropolitan police magistrate sitting as a petty 1 of the Act shews at once that there is no separate real represessional court is sitting in petty sessions. The metropolitan sentative as such, and that the function of holding the real estate magistrates as a body appear to have adopted this view, for at of the deceased is simply an additional duty imposed on the pera general meeting held to consider the administration of the sonal representative. "Under sub-section (i) the real estate is to new Act they have decided “that they will hear applications " devolve to and become vested in the deceased's) personal under the Vaccination Act." They go on to say that they representatives or representative from time to time as if it were “ will not require applicants to be sworn, but if satisfied upon a chattel real vesting in them or him.” Where there is no a verbal statement that they have the conscientious objection personal estate, provision is made that probate and letters of will give the certificate.” It will be noticed that the Act is administration may be granted in respect of real estate only, silent as to the necessity for the taking of an oath in support but even in this case the executor or administrator must be of the conscientious objection: the magistrate is to be looked upon primarily as personal representative. It is "satisfied”; and it seems clear that the London magistrates are in that capacity only that he takes the real estate, and right in holding that sworn evidence is not necessary. They ought, although in general his position is well described by the however, as already pointed out (ante, p. 725), to see that the phrase "real representative," yet in strictness he derives all objection is made in the case of the particular child to whom his power over the real estate from the fact that he is personal the application relates, and is not a mere general objection to representative. It seems to follow that when, under section 3, compulsory vaccination as a system.

he conveys the roal estate to the heir or devisee he ought to convey, as our correspondent suggests, in the character which

is technically his proper character; he should convey, that is, THE LETTER from Mr. CHARLES CAUTHERLEY which appeared as personal representative and not as real representative. The in the Times of the 23rd ult. contains a powerful indictment of point, our correspondent observes, has a further importance in the system of distress as applied to small tenements. It is that the conveyance" as personal representative" impor'ite curicus to note that the statute by which a sale of the goods usual implied covenant against incumbrances, whereas a conseized was first authorized (2 Will. & M. c. 5) contains a pro- voyance representative would have no such effect. vision which shows that distress in the case of the houses of If there were adequate reason for using the term "real represensmall folk was not then within the contemplation of the tative,” this difficulty could be got over by introducing an express Legislature. Before a sale can take place notice of the distress covenant, but such a course would be opposed to present conmust be left “at the chief mansion house or other most i veyancing practice, and, until the position of the real represennotorious place on the premises." In practice, however, the tative has been more directly recognized by statute, it will be law of distress is most frequently put in force in cases where it safer to refer to him, where technical accuracy is required, s would puzzle the bailiff to find anything to answer the des- the personal representative. cription of a chief mansion house, and it is put in force with results which show an enormous disproportion between the benefit to the landlord and the loss to the tenant. "Furniture, IN THE annual report of the Board of Trade on Bankruptcy, to quote Mr. CAUTHERLEY's own words, "when sold under a to which we recently referred, the solicitor to the board, Mr. W. distress for rent, however fairly the sale may be conducted, MURTON, calls attention to the case of Re Izod (46 W. R. 304), realizes very little-in fact, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say in which the Court of Appeal (A. L. SMITH and COLLINS, L.JJ., that articles which cost pounds are sold for ebillings. Speaking RIGBY, L.J., diss.) held that there was jurisdiction to from my own experience, I should say that in the majority of rascind a receiving order upon a composition being arranged instances there is nothing left for the landlord after the expenses out of court although the public examination of the debtor of the distress and sale are paid; in others but a very small had not been concluded. The Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 3, proportion of the amount due; and in a very fow, possibly not provides for the liquidation of a debtor's estate by a composition more than 10 per cent of the whole, is there sufficient to pay or scheme of arrrangement, but the approval of the court the rent in full. It is sad to see the disproportion between the is necessary, and under sub-section 6 the application for great, and too often irreparable, injury, done to tenants approval is not to be heard until after the conclusion of and the small benefit resulting to landlords under this the public examination of the debtor. It is the consystem.” It is suggested that, in the case of small tenements, tention of the Board of Trade that under this provision, the landlord would be sufficiently protected if he could when a receiving order has once been made, the debtor must, speedily recover possession of the premises in the event of the unless he pays 20s. in the £, or unless the receiving order ought rent not being paid. At present possession can be recovered never to have been made, either be adjudged bankrupt, or a either before justices or in the county court, but in either scheme must be approved on the lines indicated in the Act, case there is a delay of several weeks. Mr. CAUTHERLEY and that in either case he must undergo a public examination. would confer upon the county courts a more summary jurisdic- In Re Izod, after the receiving order had been made, an arrangetion, and would enable the registrar to make an order for re- ment was made by which the debtor's father paid all the covery of possession upon a summons returnable in four days, creditors 108. in the £, and they withdrew their proofs and At the same time the power of distress would be either abolished released the debtor from their claims. An application was then or would be restricted to cases where the rent exceeded a made for the rescission of the receiving order, and, the official minimum value. This course would avoid much hardship, and receiver raising no objection, it was granted. But the Board would apparently give to the owners of small tenement property of Trade disapproved of their officer's acquiescence and a sufficient measure of protection.

attempted to get the registrar's order reversed. The difficulty of their contention, however, lay in the fact that section

3, sub-section 6, of the Act of 1890 only applies where WE PRINT elsewhere a letter from a correspondent raising the composition is being carried out under the Act. It is not an important question as to the form of convoyance of land by till the approval of the court is asked for that the question of the personal representatives of a person dying after the 31st of the conclusion of the public examination of the debtor arises. December, 1897. The error-for such it appears to be-into Apart from this requirement, section 104 of the Act of 1883 which the draftsman of the form of conveyance to which he can be put into operation, which provides that every court refers has fallen is a natural one. Obviously the intention of having jurisdiction in bankruptcy may review, rescind, or vary the Legislature in Part I. of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, was any order made by it. In the present case the Court of Appeal to create a real representative. This is sufficiently shewn by held that the registrar had jurisdiction under this section to the title prefixed to that part, which runs, "Establishment of a rescind the receiving order, and that, inasmuch as the composireal representative," and, generally speaking, the intention has tion was not carried through under the Act of 1890, the been carried out, so that, where technical accuracy is not provision as to the conclusion of the public examination did not required, it is now correct to speak of the real representative apply. And in the circumstances of the particular case, since and to say that upon him all the real estate of the deceased there was no delinquency on the debtor's part, and since the devolves. But an examination of the actual provisions of section creditors got more under the compromise than they would have

got in bankruptcy, it was held that the rescission of the receiving out of the alteration of the level of the street they must them order was a right exercise of the discretion. Leave to appeal to selves bear the expense of altering the level of their pipes.” It the House of Lords was refused. The view of the Board of may, however, be well for the road authority, in such a case t? Trade, accordingly, has been rejected, and in a suitable case a consider whether, having regard to the decision in Gas Light, debtor can arrange with his creditors outside the Acts and Sc., Co. v. St. Mary Abbotts, it would not be prudent for them obtain a rescission of the receiving order.

to assist in placing the pipes under their streets at a safe level.

The other recent case to which we wish to refer is Martin v. INTERFERENCE WITH STREETS BY LOCAL

London County Council, decided by KENNEDY, J., on the 7th of AUTHORITIES.

August. Here the quarrel lay not between two public bodies Two cases of interest have recently been decided relating to the local authority whose action (or inaction) was alleged to be

with statutory powers but between a private individual and a exercise by local authorities of their statutory powers for the injurious to the plaintiff as a tradesman; this plaintiff's case may alteration of existing streets and the making of new streets therefors excite more sympathy than that of the water company within the area of their jurisdiction.

in the case already referred to: it was, however, equally unIn Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co. v. Wandsworth District successful. The county council, in the course of constructing. A Board of Works, which came before the Court of Appeal early new street, had stopped up the street in which the plaintiff last month, the complaint of the plaintiffs was that the defen- carried, on his business of a greengrocer and the approaches dants (who are the highway authority for their district) were thereto for a period of about six months ; it was alleged that this about to lower the level of certain roadways without at the same obstruction was carried to an unreasonable extent and lasted for time lowering the plaintiffs' water mains and pipes underlying an unreasonable time, and that the plaintiff's receipts had in the roadways so as to leave a sufficient covering of soil to consequence failen off. As the jury disagreed, the actual facts protect them from the weight of the traffic and from frost and

as to the obstruction and the damage to the plaintiff were not other sources of injury. No injury had been actually done to ascertained at the trial, but judgment was given for the the mains and pipes by the defendants' works. These works defendants on the ground that, even if the action of the county were proposed to be carried out under the powers given to the council was unreasonable, a loss of custom by the plaintiff was defendants by section 98 of the Metropolis Management Act, not a direct injury for which he could recover. 1855, “to cause the ground or soil” of their streets “to be A case in which a plaintiff did recover damages for injury raised or lowered, and the course of the channels running in, to his business caused by an authorized obstruction to a into, or through the same to be turned or altered in such manner thoroughfare being continued for an unreasonable time was as they think proper, and to alter the position of any mains or Wilkes v. Hungerford Market Co. (2 Bing. N. O. 281); but that pipes in or under such street, such alteration to be made subject case cannot be considered as an authority : see Caledonian Railto the approval of the engineer of the company to which such way Co. v. Ogilvy (2 Macq. 229), Ricket v. Metropolitan Railway mains or pipes belong." Although several authorities were

Co. (L. R. 2 H. L. 175). It was, moreover, inconsistent with cited in the argument before KEKEWICH, J., and in the Court of previous decisions on the subject, such as Hubert v. Groves (1 Appeal, the precise question does not seem to have come before Esp. 148). The rule as to actions of this kind is clearly stated the courts in any reported case. In Geddis v: The Proprietors of by BRETT, J., in Benjamin v. Storr (L. R. 9 C. P. 400). The the Bann Reservoir (3 App. Cas. 430), the defendants, acting plaintiff, he says, must, in the first place, " show a particular under statutory powers, had collected a large quantity of water injury to himself beyond that which is suffered by the rest of in a reservoir and let it flow down a watercourse to supply the the public. It is not enough for him to show that he suffers River Bann; the watercourse becoming insufficient to carry off the the same inconvenience in the use of the highway as other water, the plaintiff's lands were flooded and the defendants people do, if the alleged nuisance be the obstruction of a highwere held liable on the ground that it was their duty to keep the way." In that particular case the plaintiff was held entitled to watercourse free from obstruction, which they had not done. succeed, it having been proved that the defendant's wagons Again, in The Gas Light and Coke Co. v. The Vestry of St. Mary constantly stood in the road opposite the plaintiff's house and Abbotts, Kensington (15 Q. B. D. 1), the defendants in the course obstructed his light and air, and obliged him to use artificial of performing their statutory duty of repairing the streets of light nearly all day. The distinction between such a case as their parish had used very heavy steam-rollers, which caused that and the case of Martin v. London County Council is clear. repeated fractures to the plaintiffs gas-pipes, and in respect of In the latter case the nuisance, if it existed, was common to the this injury the plaintiffs were held entitled to an injunction and plaintiff and his neighbours, and he was not within the rule damages.

stated by BRETT, J. In both of these cases it will be observed that injury had been actually caused to the plaintiffs by a negligent or unjustifiable exercise of the statutory powers of the defendant; as Lord

CORRESPONDENCE. BLACKBURN remarks in the Bann case," an action does lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorized if it be done

CONVEYANCE BY REAL REPRESENTATIVE. negligently." In the Wandsworth case KEKEWICH, J., took the

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] view that the defendants were about to interfere with the rights Sir, --I have before me a printed form of conveyance prepared by of the plaintiffs in such a way as would undoubtedly cause some very competent conveyancers and applicable to the case of a damage in the future, and he granted an injunction. His person dying after the 31st of December, 1897, intestate, and seized decision presupposed the existence of a right in the plaintiffs of real estate. to have their pipes protected by a sufficient amount of super

According to the form above referred to the “real representative" incumbent soil; the existence of this right was challenged and conveys the property to the heir-at-law in order to vest the legal was disallowed by the Court of Apreal. Water and gas com

estate in that person, and in the operative part the vendor is expressed convey the property

as real representative of the said X." panies (who have duly taken the benefit of the general Acts relat

On turning to the Land Transfer Act, 1897, Part I., I can find not ing to their undertakings) have a right to lay their pipes under a single reference to a “real representative” in the head-note, the soil of streets; but no right to have the soil above them left which, I take it, can hardly be considered part of the Act. On the undisturbed has been given by the Legislature. Section 98 of other hand I find it clearly stated that the person in whom the real the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, in empowering the estate is to yest is the personal representatives or representative of vestries and district boards to alter the position of these pipes the deceased. when relaying streets, does not require them to do so referred to should convey as

I therefore venture to submit that the vendor in the case I have

'personal representative ” of the and certainly does not require them to alter their posi

intestate. tion in such a way as

to maintain for them the same amount of protection as they formerly enjoyed. The legal representative" brings into operation the implied statutory covenants

The point is an important one, as the use of the words “personal position is thus summed up by CHITTY, L.J.: “ As between the for title.

E. S. W. road authority and the company I think that the road authority

Aug. 22. is paramount ; if they foresoo danger to their pipes arişing [See observations under“ Current Topics."-ED. S.J.].




Before the Vacation Judge.

High Court-Queen's Bench Division.


LANTS) v. LESLIE (SURVEYOR OF TAXES) (RESPONDENT). Div. This was an action on behalf of the plaintiff Robert Oppenheim (com Court. 1st August. monly called Baron Oppenheim) for an injunction to restrain the defend. Revenus-INCOME TAX-SHIPPING-DEPRECIATION IN SHIPs— ALLOWANCE apt, Mr. James Kenneth Douglas Mackenzie, bis servants and agente, until trial or further order from publishing or issuing a circular relating to

FOR-MODE OF ASCERTAINING-5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, s. 100, CASE I., R. 3– the affairs of the Guarico Gold Mining Co. (Limited) (in liquidation), con

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE ACT, 1878 (41 & 42 VICT. c. 15), s. 12. taining matters libellous and defamatory to the plaintiff (a copy of which

Case stated for the opinion of the court by the Commissioners for the circular had been sent by the defendant to the secretary of the company), General Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the City of London. At a and from publishing or issuing any circular, notice, or advertisement to meeting of the commissioners the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigathe same purport or effect, or containing statements or representations to tion Co. (the appellant company) appealed against an assessment under the same purport or effect. In support of the motion it was said that the Schedule D of £384,230, for the year ending April, 1896, less an amount circular was libellous on the plaintiff, and ought to be restrained upon allowed for diminished value of plant and machinery by reason of wear two grounds : first, that it was a contempt of court; and, secondly, that and tear of £132,622. The appellant company is incorporated by Royal it was within the decisions which laid down that the court would restrain Charter with a registered office in the City of London. The assessment a libel. It was clearly a libel which could not be justified : Roach v. Hall of £384,230 was made on the profits shewn by the company's accounts (2 Atk. 469), Coleman v. West Hartlepool Railway Co. (8 W. R 734), Tich- upon an average of three years ending the 30th of September, 1894. The borne v. Mostyn (L. R. 7 Eq. 55), Daw v. Eley (17 w. R. 245, L R 7 Eq. appellant company are owners of a fleet of fifty-one steamships trading 49), Kitcat v. Sharp (31 W. R. 227), Re Crown Bank (44 Ch. D. 649, 38 between England and the colonies and foreign ports. The question for W. R. Dig. 221), Coats v. Chadwick (42 W. R. 328 ; 1894, 1 Ch. 347), and the consideration of the commissioners was whether the company was Monson v. Tussaud (1894, 1 Q. B. 671, 42 W. R. Dig. 37). So far as the entitled to any further deduction beyond the sum of £132,622, as represtatements in the circular were charges of misfeasance, dishonesty, and senting the diminished value by reason of wear and tear during the year fraud the defendant had said nothing in his affidavits to support them. of assessment of the ships of the company.. By the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, 8. Upon behalf of the defendant it was said that the defendant intended to 100, First Case, r. 3, it is provided : “In estimating the balance of profits justify the statements in the circular.

and gains chargeable under Schedule D, or for the purpose of assessing PHILLIMORE, J., in giving judgment, said that no doubt the circular was the duty thereon, no sum shall be set against or deducted from, or libellous in the sense that it was calculated to hold the plaintiff up to allowed to be set against or deducted from, euch profits or gains on hatred and contempt. He had heard the motion at length partly out of account of : Any sums expended for repairs of premises occupied for the deference to the able arguments of ounsel by whom he had been purpose of such trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern, nor for any addressed, and partly because the case was of some importance. But in sum expended for the supply or repairs or alterations of any implements, his opinion the motion must be refused with costs. No doubt the circular, utensils, or articles employed for the purpose of such trade, &c, beyond if published, would be libellous on the plaintiff, and he was bound to the sum usually expended for such purposes, according to an average of hold, having regard to the decisions and dicta set forth in the books, that three years preceding the year in which such assessment shall be made." there were cases in which the publication of a libel would be restrained By the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 15), s. 12, before the truth or falsity of it bad been tried. He agreed most it is enacted : "Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained entirely with the language of Lord Esher, M.R., in Coulson v. Coulson (3 in any Act relating to income tax, the commissioners sball in assessing the Times L. R. 846), cited by Lopes, LJ, in delivering judgment in Monson profits or gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern in the v. Tussaud. Lord Esher said that it was a most delicate jurisdiction which nature of trade chargeable under Schedule D, or the profits of any concern was only to be exercised in the clearest cases where any jury would say chargeable by reference to the rules of that schedule, allow such deducthat the matter complained of was libellous, and where, if the jury diá tion as they may think just and reasonable, as representing the not so find the court would set aside the verdict as unreasonable. Lopes, diminished value by reason of wear and tear during the year of any L.J., added, " Comment has been made on the words in the clearest machinery or plant used for the purposes of the concern and belonging to cases,' and it has been asked what those words mean. I think the the person or company by whom the same is carried on.” The appellant criticism would be well founded, and they might be complained of as

company claimed under these provisions to be allowed a deduction of indefinite, if they had not been in my judgment explained in the most £253,893, on the ground that the same was a just and reasonable allowexhaustive way by what follows-viz., "Where any jury would say the

ance as representing the diminished value by reason of wear and tear matter complained of was libellous, and where, if the jury did not so find, during the year of assessment of the ships constituting the company's the court would set aside the verdict as unreasonable.' He subscribed fleet. It was proved by the company that during a period of twentyto every word contained in those sentences. Lopes, L.J., further said five years ending in 1894 the average duration of service of ships-as that "the court must alzo be satisfied that in all probability the alleged distinguished from the average duration of life-in the appellant com. libel was untrue, and, if written on a privileged occasion, that there pany's fleet was about seventeen years. Evidence produced on the part was malice on the part of the defendant." Iu the present case

of the Inland Revenue as regards steamships generally in no case superior it bad been said upon behalf of the defendant that he intended to to those of the appellants, showed that the registers of shipping for the justify, and there was also the question of privilege. The defen- ports of London and Liverpool, and the Mercantile Navy List proved that dant had an arguable case that the circular was an answer to the the average life of ships of 1,000 tons register and upwards was twentydirectors' report and was written in self-defence. One of the occasions five years, and in some cases twenty-seven and twenty-eight years; and upon which a publication was privileged was when the publication took

the Inland Revenue produced evidence in special cases in support of their place in self-defence. It was not for him to pick holes in the defendant's contention that twenty-eight years should be taken as the normal life of case. At the same time he thought the defendant would be well advised a steamship. It was admitted by the company and by the respondent if he abetained from publishing the circular, because, if he published it, that allowance had been duly made in every account yearly submitted for he would in all probability he met with actions for libel. He thought, income tax purposes for repairs of all vessels and for all renewals of after what had taken place, that if the defendant published the circular it boilers and gear, as well as for all amendments to the hull of the vessel, might well be that it would be held that there was malice on his part, exclusive of and in addition to the allowance now claimed for diminished and that he might have to pay heavy damages, and he advised him value by reason of wear acd tear. On the part of the appellant company seriously not to publish it. As to the circular being a contempt of court, it was contended that an allowance for diminished value by reason of upon the notice of motion the question did not strictly arise. But he

wear and tear, at the rate of 5 per cent. on the original cost of their certainly thought there had been lately a sort of craze in many cases in vessels, is a just and reasonable deduction, and that this mode of calbringing forward published matter as a contempt of court. No doubt culating depreciation to be allowed should be the principle adopted by the comments might be of such a nature that they might constitute a con

commissioners in the case of the appellant company. On the part of the tempt of court even after the decision in a case had been given. Any. Inland Revenue it was contended that an allowance at the rate of 6 per thing which tended to impede a court of justice was a contempt of court. cent. on the diminished value of the fleet for the year of Assessment, In the present case the alleged contempt was interfering with the course

arrived at by taking the original cost of each vessel and writing it down of justice before the proceedings were completed. In order to constitute year by year at a rate of 6 per cent. on the diminishing value, would fully such contempt there must be something likely to prejudice a jury, or to

cover the diminished value by reason of wear and tear during the year, deter parties from proceeding with their cases, or to frighten witnesses and with regard to the appellant company's contention that 5 per cent. from coming to give evidence. If any gentleman came before him and should be allowed on the first cost of the vessels, it was further contended said, “I have a case-coming before you, and articles are being written for the Inland Revenue that the claim could not be considered "just and which are likely to influence you in your judgment,” he should ask the reasonable,”. for where a vessel's life extended beyond cwenty years and gentleman why he paid him so very bad a compliment. If there had the ownership changed, an allowance could not be refused to the owners been a misfeassnce summons taken out, and it had been shewn that there on the expiration of that period, on the ground that allowances of 5 per was a probability that this circular might reach some of the witnesses and cent. for twenty years, covering the whole first cost of the vessel, had influence them, the case might be different. The cases cited were all dis already been made to the original owners. It was further contended that tinguishable. Re Crown Bank came near to the present case, but he hoped the length of service of a vessel in the appellant's employ did not afford & the decision of North, J., in that case fell on one side of the line and the proper basis upon which to determine the allowance for diminished value present decision on the other. The motion would be dismiseed, with by the wear and tear of the ships, nor was the depreciation in capital coste. Motion dismissed. — COUNSEL, Mulligan, Q.C., and Maugham; value to be considered, except so lar as it arose from wear and tear. The Hurst. SOLICITORS, Dixon, Weld, f Dixons, for Sewell & Maugham ; Godfrey commissioners on the facts decided that twenty-eight years should be W.66.

coneidered the duration of life of a passenger steamship in the appellant (Reported by J. E. ALDOUS, Barrister-at-Law.]

company's service, and that an allowance of 6 per cent. per annum on the

diminishing value would be sufficient to cover diminished value by reason of Manchester District Registry (High Court).—The committee have been in wear and tear during the year in question, and that the assessment should communication with the Lord Chancellor with the view of obtaining more stand at £384,230, but that the allowance for such diminished value adequate accommodation for the offices of the registry. The committee should be increased from £132,622 to £185,440 The company, being endeavoured to arrange for the offices to be transferred to the first floor dissatisfied with this determination, now appealed.

of the building at present occupied by the registry, but an intimation has The Court (WRIGHT and KENNEDY, JJ.) upheld the determination of been received that a site for the dew offices has been selected by the the commissiuners, dismissed the appeal, and gave judgment for the Government, near the present Inland Revenue offices in Deausgate. Crown with costs.

County Court Rules, 1897.—The committee have considered these rules WRIGHT, J.-The Act of 1842 applying to these matters provided for a and orders and are of opinion that, with the exception of order 5, they do not reduction from the taxable amount of profits in respect of the average call for any observation. They consider that the effect of order 5, which amount of repairs, renewals, and alterations calculated upon the average requires an application for leave to enter a plaint under section 74 of the of three years. The Act of 1878 provides that the commissioners shall County Courts Act, 1888, to be supported by affidavit, will be mischievous, also allow such deduction as they may think just and reasonable as as tending to impede the collection of trade debts and to encourage representing the diminished value by reason of wear and tear during the vexatious defences. If any additional provisions for the protection of year of any machinery or plant used for the purposes of the concern or defendants not resident or carrying on business within the jurisdiction belonging to the person or company by whom the same is carried on. I of the court within which they are sued are necessary, ample provision is doubt whether the present cake raises any question of law at all. All that made by order ord. 12, rr. 6 and 7, 1897. The committee are of opinion we bave to do is to see that the commissioners have not disregarded any that the existing procedure sufficiently prɔvides for change of venue, and term of the enactments, or any necessary element iu the calculation. Mr. that further interference with the right of a plaintiff to select the place Buckley's first point is that if they had proceeded to make an allowance of trial is undesirable. on a diminished scale of value from year to year—which I should think Conveyancing Bill.-The committee have considered this Bill and find they probably have they were wrong in so doing. But having regard to that with certain modifications and additions it is substantially the the language of the sec ion it appears to me that that is the only way in Bill introduced in 1897, which was a revised and improved draft of Mr. which they could properly proceed. There must be a diminishing Wolstenholme's Bill of 1895 which was before the committee in November allowance, because, and only because, there is an allowance for the year, of that year. The Bill bas been dropped and the committee have taken and an allowance therefore on a value which diminishes every year. A no further action upon it, but consider that some of the amendments percentage on the original cost would not fit the language of the section proposed to be effected by the Bill would be beneficial and might well at all, because it might have no direct relation to the actual diminishing form the subject of a separate Bill apart from Mr. Wolstenholme's of value in a given year, and I do not think that that can have been the scheme. The amendments referred to include (1) power for a married meaning of the section. Then, eecondly, it is said that as to the value-woman trustee to dispose or join in disposing of real or personal trust which would be understood as the value to this company, and the property as if she were a feme sole ; (2) to provide that the persons diminution of value as a diminution of value to them, that is, a diminution appointed trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts of the of value calculated in relation to a period of seventeen years' service, and original or principal settlement shall be the trustees for the purposes of not a diminution of value calculated upon the probable or average duration those Acts of any "compound" settlement for the time being comof the ship's life-it is said that the company ought to get back at the end (prising such original settlement; (3) to give a married woman, restrained of seventeen years the diminution of value to them in that time. I do not from anticipation, the powers of a tenant for life ; and (4) to explain and think that can be the real meaning of this section because it does not say amend section 19 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. €0. It speaks of the value, and not the value to the particular owner. If Stamps on conveyances comprising chief rents. This subject has again the value to the particular owner were intended, then, obsolescence of received the careful attention of the committee, who have approved of the type might have to be considered, and a number of other elements clause drafted by Mr. Danckwerts on the instructions of the Incorporated peculiar to the particular owners might bave to be considered. It seems Law Society, U.K. The Incorporated Law Society are endeavouring to to me that it is enough that a period should be taken wbich experience get the clause inserted in some Government Finance Bill and passed with shews is the term of duration of life for the ordinary purposes of similar that measure, but they have not yet attained their object. companies. Then it is said it is wrong to allow interest, because the money representing the wear and tear must be regarded as expended and not as invested. That seems to me to be wrong. Repairs and renewals have already been allowed for under the Act of 1842 This allowance is not to be supposed to be treated as an allowance to be expended, but as

LEGAL NEWS. providing a fund for replacing the value of the ship at the end of the term. I do not think we can say the commissioners were wrong, and it is

APPOINTMENTS. not shewn that they have miscarried on any point of law.

Mr. T. BAILEY SAUNDERS, barrister-at-law, has been appointed Secretary KENNEDY, J.-I agree. It seems to me the Attorney-General is right in of the London University Commission. saying that substantially what we are aeked to review are decisions of fact and not of law. If it be shewn that in fact there has been a of the Borough of Tamworth, and also Clerk to the Justices of the Tam.

Mr. EDWARD ARGYLE, solicitor, has been appointed Clerk to the Justices misconstruction of the section, that the commissioners have not dore or worth Division of Staffordshire, in the room of his late father, Mr. Thomas applied their minds to that which the section directed to be assessed, that Argyle. The late Mr. Argyle (who died on the 9th ult., in his eightywould be a good ground of appeal; or if it be clearly shewn that they fourth year) had held the former clerkship for over sixty years and the have included some element which they ought not to have included, or latter for about thirty years. have omitted something which they ought to have included, then that also would be a ground of appeal. On neither ground is there anything Mr. H. LUPTON Reddish, solicitor, Coventry, has been appointed a here in which we can say that the decision appealed agaiust is wrong. Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Reddish was admitted in 1891. They have dealt with the thing wbich they were to deal with, and they have stated the various considerations as to how the sum which they had to assess on the diminishing value of the vessel by reason of wear and

CHANGES IN PARTNERSHIPS, &c. tear during the year ought to be arrived at, and they have come to a

DissOLUTIONS. conclusion which – whether from a commercial point they might have come to a different conclusion or not-stands, unless it is arrived at on

MATTHEW HYDE and EDWARD Hobbs, solicitors (Hyde & Hobbs), 124, some ground which brings it within the cognizance of this court. I High-street, Portsmouth, Hants, and the Square, Petersfield, Hants.

June 30.

[Gazette, Aug. 26. agree that there is no such ground. It is a matter of amount, and clearly a question of fact and not of law.--COUNSEL, The Attorney-General and

WILLIAM WIGGLESWORTH and ARTHUR ROBERT ROGERSON, solicitors Danckwerts, Buckley, Q.C., Asquith, Q.C., and Howard Wright. Soli- (Wigglesworth & Rogerson), Manchester. Dec. 27, 1897. CITORS, The Solicitor of Inland Revenue ; Freshfields f Williams.

[Gazette, Aug. 30. (Reported by Sir SHERSTON BAKER, Bart., Barrister-at-Law.!

The next sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence at

the Old Bailey on Tuesday, the 13th of September. Mr. Justice Darling LAW SOCIETIES.

will be the presiding judge.

On the 1st of July, says the Daily News, the very day on which the MANCHESTER INCORPORATED LAW ASSOCIATION. Workmen's Compensation Act became operative, a collier was killed in. The annual general meeting of the members of this association was held the Melwyn Colliery, South Wales. The proprietor had protected himon Tuesday, the 26th day of July, at their rooms, Kennedy-street, when self in the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, and, after negoan account of the receipts and disbursements for the year ending Decem- tiations, Mr. David Randall, M.P. for Llanelly, has succeeded in getting ber, 1897 (previously audited by two of the members), was submitted and £150 deposited in the bank in the name of trnstees for the benefit of the passed, and the officers and committee were elected for the ensuing year: United Kingdom under the new Act.

widow and children of the deceased miner. This is the first case in the Mr.R. A. Edgar was elected president, and Mr. H.T. Crofton vice-president. The report of the committee as to the proceedings of the association for The Home Secretary has issued an order, dated the 6th of August, 1898, the last year was read by the honorary secretary (Mr. John Bury!, and applying the provisions of section 40 of the Factory and Workshop Act, unanimously adopted.

1895, to factories and workshops in which wholesale tailoring is carried The following are extracts from the report :

The section is modified in some specified particulars, and comes into Members.—The association now consists of 256 members. Since the force on the 1st of October next. The Home Secretary has also issued a last annual meeting reven new members have been elected and three have certificate, dated the 3rd of August, 1898, under the Factory and Work. resigued.

shop Act, 1891, that the dusting of colours on adhesive surfaces for tbe

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »