« PreviousContinue »
Cos-rrix, MARK, Leicester, Fruit Salesman Oct 14 at 3
Cosnuir, Gnoacs Enwni, Alton, Hunts, Music Seller
Cniiiir, Riciisan Bewdley, Womcsters, Timber Merchant Ord Oct 1 _ _
at 11 Off Rec, Trinity House ln, Hull _ dresser Oct 15 at 12.30 Oil Rec, 8, King st, Ndrwic
London Gazette of Aug 26 :
Manufacturer Newcastle on Tyne Pet Aug 23 Ord Aug 23
pt 6 BEAUMONT, Josrrn, Micklehurst nr Mosley, Cheshire Piecer Ashton under Lyne Bet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 BELLAMY, ARTHUR, Leicester, Hardware Dealer Leicester Pet Oct 5 rd ct 5
0 O Bananas, Hanar JAMES, Clacton on Sea Cambridge Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5
We all eat two much flesh food and drink too much tea.
The former milit-ates against working energty, and the tannio acid and other deleterious properties to e found tea lower the spirits and 1D]11I‘6 the health. The body, m fact, is a working engine, and as such it must be treated. The waste of tissue which daily goes on can only be re laced by the proper assimilation of food.
gt cannot be done with medicine.
Science, however, has again come to the rescue, and it cannot be too widely known that tone and vigour can be
romoted, and the rosy cheeks natural to health restored by the vitalising and restorative properties of ii most valuable discovery. The evidence 0 medical men and the public is conclusive on this point.
It proves that Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa. _a.s a Food-beverage possesses nutrient, restorative, and vitalising properties, which have hitliertobeen non-existent. _
It aids the digestive powers, and is invaluable to tired men and delicate women and children.
It has the refreshing properties of fine tea, the nourishment of the best cocoas, and a tonic and_recupei-ative force possessed by neither, and can be used in all oases where tea and coffee are prohibited.
It is not u medicine, but ii unique and wonderful foodbeverage _
Dr. Tibbles’ Vi-Cocoa. is made up in 6d. packets and 9d. and ls. 6d. tins. It can be obtained from all Grocers, Chemists, and Stores, or from 60, 61, and 62, Bunhill-row, London, E.C, _ 4
As an unparalleled test of merit, a dainty sample tin of Dr. Tibbles’ Vi-Cocoa will besent post free on agplication to any address, if when writing (a postcard w'l do) the reader will name the SOLICITORS J oniisAi..
BRISTOL and WESTERN COUNTIES _ _ SALES and VALU.»iTIONs' of LANDED. BESI1)Ei\— . TIAL, and BUSINESS PROPERTY, SHARES, REVERSIONS, d':., by D] ESSRS. DUROSE SUTTON & CO., THE COUNTY AUCTION MART, BRISTOL.
Q The attention of Solicitors, Trustees, &c., is in
vited to the central and commanding position of the Mart,
affording the greatest publicity to_Salc Announcements.
The Auctioneers have numerous Clients at all UIIIO5 pre
pared to Purchase or make Advances on Mortgage of B.-cal Property.
PETEBBOROUG-H. Established 1820. D] ESSRS. BRISTOW. WARWICK, 8: ‘ POTTER, SURVEYORS, LAND AGENTS. AUCTIONEEBS, AND VALUERS.
.l[ARI\'E7' SQ IT.-Iltl-.'. I'I'.'7'l','I.’lIUli'll [PG II. Surveys made, Reports and Valuations for Mortgage, Partition, Exchange, Enfranchisement, Estate Duty, Tenantright. and Timber; Estates Managed and Rants Collected.
FULLER, HORSEY, SONS, & CASSELL,
I Printers oi THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL Newspaper.
SPECIALTIES 1 ——
Authors advised with as to Printing and Publishing.
DSI Estimates and all information furnished.
I Contracts snlered into.
VOL. XLIL, N0. 5!. The Solicitors’ Journal and Reporter.
LONDON, OCTOBER 22, I898.
'," The Editor cannot undertake to return rejected contributions, aud copies should be kept of all articles sent by writers who are not on the regular staff of the JOURNAL.
Conan-r Torxcs .................. ........... 827 Tus: Riv-zrr or M\a;'r1us CAPTURE 83$ D",,L,,-,-,0,‘ 0,, RE“, Em-M-E L-PM M. LIDAL Nsws .................................. .. 835 I24-rssrsor ................................. .. 880 Com“ P‘"“""' 83? Wrnnrso Ur No-rros 841
Cases Reported this Week.
(Baron: -ms Vacsnos J uvos.)
Hobbs, Hart, & Co. (Lim.) v. Grover and -.... 833 Taylor v. The Cambridge Gazette Co. (Lim.) and Kilner..... 832 (Couzrrr Coos-rs.)
Jones v. C. -52 W. Walker ............................ .... ... .................. .. 833
THE APPEAL list for the ensuing sittings keeps up its recently increased figures. It contains 283 appeals, of which 94 are from the Chancery Division, 159 from the Queen’ Bench Division, and 3 from the Probate and Divorce Division ; and there are also l appeal from the Lancaster Chancery Court, 4 appeals in Bankruptcy, and 19 cases in the New Trial Paper. A year ago there were only 159 appeals, and at the commencement of the last sittings there were 234 appeals.
THE Cnssossr Division cause lists shew a decline iu the number of causes and matters. There are in all 585 causes and matters as compared with 743 actions and matters a year ago, and 617 at the commencement of the last sittings.
Anscnms in numbers is also a feature oi some of the Q,ueen’s Bench lists, which contain 603 causes in all, as against 1,041 a year ago. There are 453 actions for trial, as against 906 a year ago, and 431 at the commencement of the last sittings. On the other hand, there are 122 matters in the Divisional Court list, in place of 44 matters at the commencement 0! the last sittings.
Tun ARRANGEMENTS made by the Judges 0! the Chancery Division for the trial of witness actions during the ensuing sittings are as follow : Mr. J ustica Nonrn will take his Witness List for the fortnight beginning on Tuesday, the 15th of November, and will sit continuously (Monday, the 21st of November, excepted) until Saturday, the 26th of November, his motions, &c., being taken by Roman, J . Mr. Justice STIRLING will begin on Tuesday, the 15th of November, and sit continuously (Monday, the 21st of November, excepted) until Saturday, the 26th of November, his motions &c., being taken by KEKEWICH, J . Mr. Justice Ksxswrcu will begin on Tuesday, the lst of November, and sit continuously (Monday, the 7th of November, excepted) until Saturday, the 12th of November, his motions, &c., sing taken by Srmnnvc, J . Mr. Justice Roman will take his Witness List as stated in the Sittings Paper, his motions, &c., being taken by Nonrn, J .
Tnn CRIMINAL Evidence Act has now been in force ior over a week, and as far as can be gathered from the newspaper accounts of trials in which the accused persons have given evidence, it has worked very satisfactorily up to the present. Cases
have been reported in which persons have been acquittedwhen the evidence for the prosecution made things look very black indeed for them, apparently entirely because of the new aspect put upon the facts by the sworn testimony of the accused. On the other hand, more than one case has occurred in which a guilty person has secured his own just pimishment by clearing up in the course of cross-examination any doubts which the evidence for the prosecution might have left in the minds of the jury. Not many serious difficulties seem to have yet arisen as to the construction of the Act, but at least two decisions have been given which will probably be generally disapproved of. The first of these is a matter of small importance. The Act provides that an accused person “shall not be called as a witness in pursuance of this Act except upon his own application." At the London Sessions, counsel defending a prisoner proposed, at the end of the evidence for the prosecution, to call his client as a witness. The Deputy-Chairman, however, ruled that counsel must not make the application for the person charged, but that such person must apply with his own mouth for leave to go into the witness-box. We cannot think that the Act means this. Surely an application made by a prisoner through his counsel is his own application. If the Act does mean what Mr. LOVELAND-LOVELAND thinks it means, there does not seem to be any good reason for such a provision, as a prisoner will, of course, make the application as a rule on the prompting of his counsel. Moreover, it is hardly seemly, when a prisoner is defended by counsel who advises that he shall give evidence, for a judge to intervene and deter the man from following his counsel's advice by an exposition of the law as to perjury.
Tun ornna decision referred to is one of much greater importance, and is really a serious matter. Section 2 of the Act provides that when the only witness called for the defence is the accused person himself, he shall be called immediately after the close of the evidence for the prosecution. Also, by section 3 it is enacted that where the right of reply depends upon the question whether evidence has been called for the defence, the fact that the person charged has been called as a witness shall not of itself confer on the prosecution the right of reply. On these two sections the Recorder of Nottingham has decided, in a case defended by counsel in which the prisoner alone gave evidence for the defence, that counsel for the
rosecution had no right to sum up his case after the prisoner had given evidence. Now, it is expressly provided by 28 Vict. c. 18 (commonly known as Denman’s Act), that where a prisoner is defended by counsel, counsel for the prosecution shall have the right to address the jury a second time “ for the purpose of summing up the evidence against such person,” in case witnesses are not called for the defence ; and further, that save for this alteration in the practice the “right of reply ” should be as theretofore. It is clear, therefore, that a “ summing up ” is not the same as a “ reply.” Both are mentioned in the same section of Denman’s Act. The Recorder of Nottingham, however, seems to have rather confused the two. A speech in 1'r’])l_l/, it is submitted, is one in answer to speech by the other side. If it is proper for counsel for the Crown to sum up his case where no witnesses are called for the defence, still more desirable is it that he should do so when the prisoner gives evidence, and the Criminal Evidence Act could never have intended to take away the power given by Denman’s Act. It is to be observed that where the prisoner alone gives evidence for the defence, it is the express purpose of the Act to reserve to his counsel the valuable privilege of having the last word to the jury, and this is a most fair and proper provision. If, however, the Recorder of Nottingham is right, we are brought to face this absurdity, that in a long and complicated case, where it is most desirable for counsel for the Crown to sum up his case, he can be deprived of the right so to do by the calling of the accused alone as a witness, which perhaps still further complicates the case, though it in no way deprives the prisoner’s counsel of his privilege of the last word. We observe that Lord Lnnnow, in his remarks on the new Act, which our readers will find elsewhere, says that the object of section 2 “is to give the prosecution in cases defended by counsel, in summing up the evidence, an opportunity of commenting on the evidence so given ” [1'.e., by the prisoner].
Tna CASE of Barnes v. Glentan (1898, 2 Q. B. 223) is the latest of the series of decisions relating to the operation of section 8 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874. Money was lent to A. and others in 1882 on security which may be shortly described as a sub-mortgage not containing any covenant for repayment of the advance. Interest was paid from time to time by A.’s co-debtors up to 189 6, and, the above action being subsequently brought against A. and his co-debtors, the question arose whether such payment by them kept the debt alive as against A. Section 8 bars any action or suit to recover any money secured by “any mortgage, judgment, or lien, or otherwise charged upon or payable out of any land or rent " after twelve years, “unless in the meantime some part of the principal money or some interest thereon shall have been paid,” or such acknowledgment given as the section requires. If, then, the case fell within section 8, it would seem to follow, on a literal construction of the words of the enactment, that any payment on account of principal, or any payment of interest thereon, would altogether stop the statute from running. But it was contended for A. that, there being no express covenant, the liability, if any, was for a simple contract debt within the Limitation Act, 1623, with the result that the six years’ limitation of actions applied, and with the further result that A. was protected by the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, s. 14, from being chargeable by reason of any payment made by A.’s co-contractors or co-debtors, which enactment, it was admitted, did not apply to the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874: see Re Frisby, Allison v. Friaby (38 W. R. 65, 43 Ch. D. 106). In Sutton v. Sutton (31 W. R. 369, 22 Ch. D. 511) section 8 was held to apply not only to the remedy against the land, but also to an action on an express personal covenant to repay in a mortgage. The decision of the Court of Appeal in that case was a surprise to the profession (see 43 Ch. D., at p. 108), and the subsequent history of the case (which is to be found in the judgment of Cnrnv, J., in Re Turner, Turner v. Spencer, 43 W. R. 153) shews that the pla.intifi’s claim might have been so framed as not to have raised the point decided, which proved not to be conclusive of the case, but it leaves the decision untouched, and that has become a landmark in the law of limitation. In Barnes v. Glenton the court (Lord Rnssnnn, CJ.) refused to confine section 8 to cases where there was a specialty, holding that the efiect of section 8 was to take out of the Limitation Act of James I. for all purposes all actions of debt secured by mortgage or otherwise charged upon or payable out of land. It was pointed out that cases of security by lien, which were not often eflfected by specialty contract, were expressly included in section 8. The case was therefore governed by section 8, and the only question left was whether the payments made by A.’s co-debtors were sufficient to keep the claim alive against A., as to which the decision in the Court of Appeal in Re Frisby (supra) was held to be conclusive against A. In the opinion of FRY, L.J., in that case, “ a payment satisfying the words of the section is made whenever there is a render of money to a person entitled to receive it by a person liable to pay it” (88 W. R. at p. 66, 43 Ch. D. at p. 117).
IT Is, perhaps, one of the chief functions of the courts to apply Acts of Parliament to cases which the wisdom of the Legislature has not foreseen. A good illustration is afforded by the case of Jams v. Walker in the Birmingham County Court, which is reported elsewhere. A man who had been working as a blacksmith applied for employment in the erection of a gasholder for the Birmingham Corporation. There was no vacancy for him in that capacity, but the contractors’ foreman put him on to a job which only required unskilled labour. Nothing was said as to the rate of wages. He had not worked more than three hours when an accident occurred by which he was severely injured and rendered incapable of work. The nature of the accident brought the case within the Act of 1897, but a dispute arose as to the rate of compensation. The rule upon this subject is laid down by clause 1 (b) of the first Schedule. In case of total or partial incapacity for work the compensation is to be a weekly payment not exceeding 50 per cent. of the workman’s “average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed, but if not, then