« PreviousContinue »
directly by a decree of specific performance, or indirectly by an company is empowered to prove against the estate of an insolvent injunction, appears to be immaterial.” The case of Fredericks contributory for any balance, and to take a dividend on such v. Waller was on all fours with Montague v. Flockton. The balance, and since the proof has to be made and the dividend defendant, after contracting with the plaintiff to perform in received in the bankruptcy, it has been held that the balance “The Three Musketeers" at the Borough Theatre, Stratford, is to be ascertained according to the rules in bankruptcy. Hence during the present week, entered into an engagement to perform the liquidator can only prove for the balance of calls due after during the same period at the Globe. His agreement with allowing for the debt due from the company to the shareholder. the plaintiff contained no negative term, and the Court of Appeal, The question whether a similar rule prevails when the creditortherefore, upholding CHANNELL, J., declined to interfere by an shareholder is a company which is also in liquidation has arisen in injunction. This cannot be done save where there is an the recent case of Auriferous Properties (Limited) (1898, 1 Ch. 691), express negative stipulation, and even then only with caution. before WRIGHT, J. It was possible that the practice as to set Lumley v. Wagner, it has been said, is to be looked upon rather off in winding up had been assimilated to the practice in bankas an anomaly to be followed in cases like it, but an anomaly ruptcy by section 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875. It has which it would be very dangerous to extend.
already been determined, however, that as between a company in liquidation and a solvent creditor-shareholder, this section
does not alter the rule established by the cases cited above SHORTLY AFTER the passing of the Companies Act, 1862, the (Gill's case, 12 Ch. D. 755; see Re Washington Diamond Mining question arose whether in the winding up of a company a Co., 1893, 3 Ch., p. 112), and neither does the rule seem to be shareholder who is a creditor of the company is entitled to set altered when the creditor-shareholder is a company in liquidation. off the debt due to him against calls due from him, and in Grissell's The ground of Re Duckworth is that the application to enforce the case (L. R. 1 Ch. 528) it was answered in the negative. The calls has to be made in the bankruptcy, and is subject to the substantial ground of this and subsequent decisions is that the bankruptcy law. But the claim against the shareholder-comcalls are a contribution to the assets of the company out of which pany is made in the liquidation and is subject to the ordinary law the fund for the payment of the debts is created, and that the of liquidation. Hence the liquidator of what may be called the creditor-shareholder is not to be allowed to make use of his principal company can prove for the calls due from the shareliability as a shareholder to secure payment in full of his debt. holder-company without allowing any set off of the debt due To permit this, it was observed by Lord SELBORNE, O., in to the latter. But the position of the principal company is Black f. Co.'s case (L. R. 8 Ch., p. 262), would be to give him a really better than this, because, as was held by WRIGHT, J., preference and to exonerate him from his obligation as a upon a further hearing of the same case (1898, 2 Ch. 428), shareholder to contribute towards the payment of the debts of the shareholder-company cannot take any dividend on the debt the other creditors. Moreover, section 101 of the Act of 1862, in due from the principal company until it has paid in full all calls. allowing a set-off in certain cases in the winding up of an due in the winding up of the principal company. This is in anlimited company, impliedly forbids this in the case of a accordance with the last point decided in Grissell's case (supra). limited company. In Brighton Arcade Co. v. Dowling (L. R. 3 The amount of the call due from a creditor-contributory must be C. P. 175) the Court of Common Pleas appears to have rested paid before he has any right to receive a dividend with the the matter entirely on the construction of section 101, and, other creditors. since that section is in the part of the Act relating to winding up by the court, it was held that the same rule did not apply to a THE TERM "Magnolia ” is likely to attain some notoriety in voluntary winding up. Hence, in such a winding up a share the records of litigation. The attempt to uphold the registraholder was allowed to set off his debt against calls. But the tion of it as a trade mark resulted in an interesting decision in decision is opposed to the grounds upon which Lord SELBORNE Re Magnolia Metal Co.'s Trade-Marks (1897, 2 Ch. 371), and based his judgment in Black & Co.'s case, and it was disapproved of various other proceedings have taken place in which the by JESSEL, M.R., in Rs Whitehouse & Co. (9 Ch.D. 595). Sir GEORGE company have sought to protect their rights in the "anti-friction JESSEL started a new theory that the liability for calls in the metal” which they manufacture. The decision of the Court of winding up was not a debt due to the company, and consequently Appeal in the latest of these- The Magnolia Metal Co. v. The the elements of a right of set-off did not exist. But this, in Tandem Metal Co.--shows the difficulty of maintaining an action turn, seems to have been erroneous. There were cross-debts to preserve a trade-name when no right to it exists by registra, between the shareholder and the company wbich according to tion, and when the process of manufacture is open to the world. the ordinary law would have founded a claim to set off, but The metal in question was originally manufactured by a secret the claim was excluded upon the general principles governing process. Subsequentiy it was made the subject of an English the liability of the shareholder to contribute to the assets of patent, and the term "Magnolia” was registered as a trade-mark. the
company: “The decision in Brighton Arcade Co. v. The mark was, however, in Re Magnolia Metal Co.'s Trade-Marks, Dowling,” said LINDLEY, L.J., in Re Pyle Works (44 Ch. D., p. directed by KEKEWICH, J., to be expunged, the decision being 585), after criticizing Sir GEORGE JESSEL's theory, "was, in affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and in subsequent proceedings my opinion, clearly erroneous, because, although the call was a before ROMER, J., the patent was declared to be void. But even debt due to the company, the statute, properly. construed, without a trade-mark or a patent it is possible to protect a tradeprohibited the allowance of a set-off in cases of voluntary name on the ground that the use of it by a rival manufacturer is winding up, as well as in cases of winding up by the court or a fraud upon the public, though it seems that, for this purpose, subject to its supervision.
it is necessary to show that the rival manufacturer is passing off spurious goods under a name to which the plaintiff is exclusively
entitled. In the present case the verdict given by the jury at BUT WHILE it is thus well settled that no right of set-off exists the trial did not shew that at the present time the term under ordinary circumstances between a company in liquidation "Magnolia” is recognized as exclusively denoting the goods of the and a creditor-shareholder, difficulties arise when the share- plaintiff company, and the ciroumstances repelled the suggestion holder is insolvent. The rights of another set of creditors are that the goods of the defendants were a spurious imitation. Where then in question, and according to the decision in Re Duckworth the plaintiff is manufacturing goods by a secret process, it follows (L. R. 2 Ch. 578) these are allowed to prevail. Prima facie this that goods which the defendant palms off as being identical must is not very intelligible. The considerations which exclude the be spurious, and the fraud upon the public is complete The right of set-off apply equally whether the shareholder is solvent most recent instance of this is the case of Birmingham Vinegar or insolvent, and it is not easy to understand why his insolvency Brewery Co. v. Powell (1897, A. C. 710). But where an should put his estate in a better position as regards the company invention has been patented the process is published to the of which he is a member. The explanation is furnished by world, and is open to everyone, subject only to the protection of the specific provision of the bankruptcy law permitting an the patent. In the present case the patent had gone, and there extensive right of set-off when an estate is being administered in was no reason why the defendant company should not, had they bankruptcy (section 38 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883). Under go wished, have manufactured the metal according to the section 95 of the Companies Act, 1862, the liquidator of the evealed process. In fact, however, it was, according to the
finding of the jury, both practically and commercially, different tion 7). Power—similar to that conferred in consimili casu by from that of the plaintiffs. Hence the Court of Appeal section 300 of the Lunacy Act, 1890—is given to county court discharged the injunction in favour of the plaintiff company judges to make orders for therecovery of expenses against an which had been granted by RIDLEY, J., at the trial.
inebriate's estate (section 12).
There remain to be noted a number of very important amendments in the Inebriates Acts, 1879 and 1888. (a) The
licensing power is transferred to the county council (section 13), THE NEW INEBRIATES ACT.
and the council of any county or borough is empowered to conOn the 1st of January, 1899, there will come into operation a tribute to the establishment of any retreat (section 14). (6) The now and rather important statute for the amendment of the law duration of a licence is raised from thirteen months to two as to habitual drunkards—the Inebriates Act, 1898 (61 & 62 years (section 15). Objection had long been taken to the Vict. c. 60). There have been during the past few years so thirteen months' limit on the ground that it discouraged applicamany demands on the part of experts for fresh legislation on tions for licences or expenditure on improvements by licensees this subject, and so many Departmental reports and Bills dealing (f. 1st Report of Inspector of Retreats, 1881, c. 354, p. 1, par. with it, that a critical summary of the points in which the now 5). (e) The maximum power of detention is raised from one to statute will affect the law may be of interest and use.
two years (the twelve months' maximum was in many cases too We have first a group of provisions as to the compulsory short for a cure to be effected: cf. Report Departmental Comsequestering in inebriate reformatories of criminal habitual mittee, 1893, A. (3)), and one justice is substituted for two drunkards which are entirely new in their character (sections justices as the attesting authority to the signature of an 1-12). It may be presumed that these provisions give effect applicant (section 16). Under section 3 of the Act of 1879, two in substance to recommendations which have run through justices having jurisdiction in the place where the matter the whole course of Parliamentary inquiry into this branch of requiring their cognizance arose were required. The clause in the law, from the Select Committee of 1872, to whose labours the italics hindered the efficacy of the statute, and it was repealed by Inebriates Act, 1879, was due, down to the reports of the section 3 of the Act of 1888—the attestation of any single Departmental Committee of 1893, which were included in justice is now sufficient. (d) A warrant for the apprehension of Lord HERSCHELL’s Inebriates Bill, 1894. The law on the an escaped patient may be issued by any single justice having matters in question is to be as follows: Where a person is con- jurisdiction in the place where the person having charge of him victed on indictment of an offence punishable with imprison- resides (section 18 (2)). Apparently this gets rid of the ment or penal servitude, if the court is satisfied from the evidence necessity of a sworn information under section 26 of the Act of that the offence was committed under the influence of drink,
1879. or that drunkenness & contributory cause of the Lastly, there are provisions for the extension of the term of a offence, and the offender admits that he is, or is found patient's detention, and for his roadmission without, as under by the jury to be, a habitual drunkard (a term not defined section 10 of the Act of 1879 and section 4 of the Act of in this Act, but the definition must no doubt be sought 1888, a statutory declaration or the attesting justice being in that given by the Inebriates Act, 1879, s. 3 : see section required to satisfy himself that the applicant is a habitual 30 of the Act of 1898), the court may, in addition to or drunkard (section 17). These amendments give the licensees of substitution for any other sentence, order his detention retreats practically all that they have asked for, except powers for a term not exceeding three years in a state inebriate of compulsory committal in non-criminal cases. These are reformatory
any certified inebriate reformatory the much needed, and they will probably be conferred in time. managers of which are willing to receive him (section 1 (1)). The principle of this change in the law has long passed out of the reach of controversy, and the only practical comment that it requires is to point out how superior, in some respects, the
REVIEWS. wording of the sub-section is to the vague language of the
THE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT, 1898. corresponding provision of the Bill as introduced, “Where a THE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT, 1898. WITH NOTES. By WILFRID person is convicted, &c., and is proved to be a habitual drunkard."
BAUGH ALLEN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. AND A SHORT HISTORY
OF THE ACT. By Sir HARRY BODKIN POLAND, Q.C. Butterworth The procedure under section 1 is to be as follows: It is to be & Co.; Shaw & Sons. sufficient in indicting, after charging the offence, to state that
Until the judges have had some opportunities of giving their the accused is a habitual drunkard ; the offender is in the opinions on the doubtful points which have already turned up, dissertafirst instance to be arraigned only for the offence charged. tions on the Criminal Evidence Act cannot be of very great value. The If he pleads, or is found, guilty of the offence, then the jury, author of this little book has, however, succeeded in giving his without being re-sworn, are to be charged to inquire whether readers some notes which throw a good deal of light on the provisions the convict is a habitual drunkard, unless he admits the fact of the Act, and prepare the way for dealing with some of its diffi(section 1 (2)). Unless evidence that the offender is a habitual culties. It is, in fact, a good working copy of the Act, together with drunkard has been given before he is committed for trial, seven connection there with. The most interesting part of the work is
an appendix of some of the statutes most likely to be referred to in days' notice of the intention to charge habitual drunkenness in undoubtedly the introduction by Sir H. Poland giving a short history the indictment is to be given to the proper officer of the court of the Act. No opinion on any matter of criminal law has more of trial and to the offender (ibid.). Again, any person who commits weight than that of Sir H. Poland, and his efforts in bringing about any of the offences specified in Schedule I. (chiefly offences the great change recently effected are well known. He makes a under the Licensing and Town Police Clauses Act), and suggestion which, if adopted, would be a great boon to poor who, within the twelve months preceding the date of prisoners ; that is, that witnesses for the defence should be placed on its commission has been convicted summarily at least the same footing as witnesses for the prosecution as to costs. At three times of any such offence, and is habitual present prisoner's witnesses are only allowed their costs if they have drunkard, is liable to be ordered to a similar poriod of three appeared before the magistrate and been bound over. It seems only years' detention if convicted on indictment or, if he consents to also in some cases be allowed.
fair that, under proper restrictions, the costs of other witnesses should be tried, summarily (section 2 (1)). The Summary Jurisdiction Act is to apply to proceedings under this section (ibid. (2)). The magistrates will thus have for the future ample powers of dealing THE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT, 1898, COMPRISING THE HISTORY with offenders of the GATES and CAKEBREAD species, who often
OF THE ACT AND ITS FULL TEXT. WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES. score centuries " of convictions for drunkenness.
By CHARLES BRONTE MORGAN, Barrister-at-Law. Effingham Then follow a series of administrative provisions as to the Wilson. establishment of State inebriate reformatories by the Home
This little book contains the text of the Criminal Evidence Act, Secretary, with the approval of the Treasury (section 3), the with some short explanatory notes and comments. Considerably establishment of certified inebriate reformatorios (section 5), more than half of it, however, consists of an interesting sketch of the and the appointment of inspectors of such reformatorios (sec- history of the Act, and of the arguments which have been put for
ward, both in the favour of the change and against it, by various authorities on the criminal law.
CASES OF THE
High Court-Queen's Bench Division. In our review of the third edition of Messrs. Macmorran and Dili's work on the Local Government Act, 1888 (ante, p. 831), we
SOLOMON Ø. CROPPER AND ANOTHER. Div, Court. 25th Oot. stated that the first edition was, we believed, published in 1894. "The INLAND RevenuE-MALE SERVANT-CLUB STEWARD-LICENCE—32 & 33 work published by those authors in that year was on the Local
Vict. c. 14, s. 19, SUB-SECTION 3. Government Act, 1894. The book under review was first published This was an appeal on a case stated by six of the justices in and for the in 1888, and attained a second edition in the same year, and now county of Lancaster. At a petty session holden at Bacup on the 30th of re-appears in a greatly enlarged form-about treble the size of the March, 1898, an information was preferred by W. Solomon, who prosecuted original work.
on behalf of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which stated that the respondents on the 20th of October, 1897, at Stacksteads, in Bacup, did
employ a male servant for the employing of whom a licence was and is BOOKS RECEIVED.
required by statute without having a proper licence under the said
statute. The justices dismissed the information. The question involved Investigation of Title; being a Practical Treatise and Alphabetical was whether one Jeremiah Clark, alleged to be in the employ of the Digest of the Law Connected with the Title to Land. With respondents, was a male servant within the meaning of sub-section 3 Precedents of Requisitions. By W. HOWLAND JACKSON and THOROLD of section 19 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14. The following facts were proved. GOSSETT, B.A., LL.M., Barristers-at-Law. Stevens & Sons (Limited). The respondents formed part of a committee elected annually by the Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Bath. Second Edition. Re-written, committee managed and conducted the affairs of the said club, and had
The Law of Negligence. By THOMAS WILLIAM SAUNDERS, Esq., members of a club known as the Stacksteads Workmen's Club, which was with the Addition of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, and the full power to discharge Jeremiah Clark, who, seven years previously, had Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. By E. BLACKWOOD WRIGHT, been appointed steward of the said club by the committee then in office. B.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Butterworth & Co.
Succeeding committees had continued the same Jeremiah Clark as steward, Local Government Act, 1894. A Practical Ready Reference Guide and he was discharging the duties of that office at the time of the alleged to Parish Councils and Parish Meetings. By J. HARRIS STONE, offence. The steward must by the custom of the club (though not by its M.A., and J. G. PEASE, B.A., Barristers-at-Law. Eighth Edition, the direction of the committee was 38s. per week. For this sum the Revised and Enlarged. George Philip & Son.
steward was to attend at the club premises from 8 a.m. to 12 noon, from
hours named in a small bar having a window opening into a larger room used by NEW ORDERS, &c.
the members, there being a counter on either side of the window. The steward
did not leave the bar to wait on any member or carry beyond the bar window THE LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
any drink which might be ordered. The practice was for members to come ORDER IN COUNCIL.
to this window and give their orders to the steward, who passed the glasses
(or whatever was ordered) through the window, when the members took At the Court at Balmoral, the 20th day of October, 1898. their refreshments to another part of the large room or consumed them on Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
the counter by the window. This service (including the accounting for
the moneys received) comprised all the service rendered by the steward Whereas it is expedient that the operation of the Order in Council, personally. But it was also required of him that he should, out of the 38s. dated the 18th of July, 1898, and made pursuant to the Land per week, provide for the cleaning of the club premises, not necessarily Transfer Act, 1897, should be postponed : Now it is hereby ordered that he should do this work himself, but that he should be answerable for and declared that the said Order is to be read and to take effect as if it being done. As a fact, the steward's wife attended to the cleaning of the instead of the words “first of November, 1898,” the words “ first of premises entirely herself, the steward not assisting in any form. Such January, 1899," had been inserted in the Schedule thereto.
was the state of affairs on the 20th October, 1897, when the Inland Revenue A. W. FITZROY.
officer called and found the steward engaged with his usual duties in the bar, at which time no licence had been taken out by the respondents
authorizing them to employ a male servant. Before giving their Land Registry Office,
decision the justices retired and considered the facts as stated, 34, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, London,
together with the arguments addressed to them. The result of their 18th October, 1898.
deliberations was that, as a bench, they were not satisfied that the The Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners man Clark was a male servant in respect of whom duty should of Her Majesty's Treasury, hereby gives notice that the under-mentioned be paid. The fact that the club premises were simply used situation is added to Schedule B of the Order in Council of 4th June, a resort for entertainment and refreshment, that no one slept on the 1870:
premises, and that the members were all working men of the artizan Temporary Draughtsman in the Land Registry.
class, caused a majority of the bench to be clearly of opinion that the premises did not fairly constitute a house or establishment where male servants, fulfilling the duties mentioned in section 19 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14,
were engaged. They were all of the opinion that at the time of the We have received the fifty-third annual issue, for 1899, of our old passing of the Act such persons as stewards in working men's clubs were friend THE LAWYER'S COMPANION AND DIARY (Stevens & Sons unknown, and that the persons chiefly contemplated were those of an (Limited) and Shaw & Sons), which contains all the usual information, inferior social position, who entered service as male servants in private
In the present case, conveniently arranged and clearly printed. The diary, on good families where such a luxury could be afforded. paper, can be had in different forms according to the number of days however, the steward Clark was not inferior to his masters in social
or prosperity of the club on each page, and either interleaved for attendances or with blotting- position, and his interest in the success
The conviction of the respondents paper or not. The ribbon for keeping references to places, embel- would have been on their part an extension of the Act of Parliament, lished with the name of an institution, which, we think, first appeared and brought in a class never thought of, and consequently not last year, is a convenience in using the book. It would be a still intended to be brought in, at the time the Act was passed. The greater convenience if other enterprising institutions would supply two justices therefore dismissed the information. The questions for the or three other ribbons of different colours to keep different references. opinion of the court were: (1) Whether Clark was a male servant within
At the meeting of the London County Council on Tuesday, the Estab- the meaning of sub-section 3 of section 19 of 32. & 33 Vict. c. 14; (2) lishment Committee reported that the solicitor had stated that it would be whether in the event of bis being such he came within any of the exempto the advantage of the council if two of his assistants were to enter into tions mentioned in sub-sections 4 and 5 of section 19 of 32. & 33 Vict. c. articles of clerkship with him with a view to their becoming qualified as
14 or section 5 of 39 & 40 Vict. c. 16. Section 19, sub-section 3, defines a solicitors. The committee saw no objection to this, and had given per
male servant as follows: “Any male servant employed either wholly or mission for the articles to be entered into. They now recommended that partially in any of the following capacities—that is to say, mâitre-d'hotel, their action should be approved. Mr. Jerome desired further information house-steward, master of the house, groom of the chambers, valet-deon the matter, and moved an amendment to refer the matter back to the chambre, butler, under-butler, clerk of the kitchen, confectioner, cook, committee, with an instruction to report what right or privilege the solicitor house-porter, footman, page, waiter, coachman, groom, postillion, stablehad to give articles of clerkship to the clerks engaged in the solicitor's boy, or helper in the stables, under-gardener, huntsman, and whipper-in, department, and on what terms, and whether, if such right or privilege of servants, by whatever style the person acting in such capacity may be
or in any capacity involving the duties of any of the above descriptions existed, it should not be abolished. Mr. Organ seconded the amendment. Mr. Harris, chairman of the committee, explained the advantages to the
called.” council of these clerks becoming duly qualified solicitors. In one instance the THE COURT (Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., and Wills, J.) allowed Incorporated Law Society had objected to the solicitor's unqualified the appeal. assistants appearing for the council in police-courts and elsewhere. The Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., in giving judgment, said: The solicitor would receive no premium and the fees would be paid by the decision of the magistrates was wrong, and the case must go back to them clerks, The amendment was rejected and the recommendation agreed to. I with an intimation of the opinion of the court. The whole question here
Was whether the man Clark was a male servant who came within the Great amusement was caused in Mr. Justice Bruce's court in the Queen's definition of sub-section 3 of section 19 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14. After read- Bench Division on Tuesday, says the St. James's Gazette, by the discovery, ing the facts of the case, the learned judge said that in his opinion the after the case had been progressing for about an hour, that there were committee were put in control of the club; they were empowered to thirteen jurymen in the box. The extra juryman was found to be a engage and dismiss the employees of the club and to lay down rules and gentleman who had been summoned to serve if required, and who, with. regulations as to the way in which employees of the club should carry out out being called, had. unobserved, walked into the jury-box, and been their duties. The argument that the steward of the club was not under sworn with the otber twelve. After an amusing discussion between Mr. the orders of anyone was a fallacious argument. He was clearly in the Witt, Q.C., and Mr. Rufus Isaacs, Q.C., the surperfluous jurgman was position of a servant and came within the definition of the section, than withdrawn, and the heariog of the case proceeded. the words of which nothing could be more comprehensive.
The service at Westminster Abbey, at the opening of the legal year, was WILLS, J., concurred. Appeal allowed. COUNsel, Danckworts ; Bosanquet, Q.C. Solicitors, Solicitor to the Inland Revenue ; Robbins, of morning prayer, and the special psalm was the 139th. The prayers
largely attended by judges and counsel. The service was a shortened form Billings, f Co.
were said by Dr. Troutbeck, and the lessons read by the Dean. The (Reported by E. G. STILLWELL, Barrister-at-Law.] Roman Catholic members of the profession, as usual, attended a
Votive Maes of the Holy Ghost" at the beginning of the sittings. Three of the judges-the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Mathew, and Mr. Justice Day
attended in their full rober, and the County Court bench was represented LAW SOCIETIES.
by Judge Bagshawe and Judge Stonor.
The sanitary inspector has, says the Globe, presented his accounts to INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
the Urban Council of Beaconsfield, Bucks. He modestly charges three EXTRAORDINARY MEMBERS OF the Council.
sbillings for "going to infectious hospital to see that the brougham was
Another item in The following presidents of the law societies named have been elected in the dry, and that the hens had not roosted upon it." Extraordinary Members of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society fetching it back, 18. 6d.” It seems a little absurd that the Urban Council,
tbe account says, “ To taking the devil to Wheatsbeaf Farm, 18. 6d.; and for the year 1898-99:
after having paid to get the devil out of their midst, should be charged Mr. T. H. Russell...
for bringing bim back. But the fanitary inspector explained that the A. C. Burbidge
“devil" was merely an instrument used in sewers.
The City Press reports a case tried in the Lord Mayor's Court, before the H. H. Gibbons
Common Serjeant, on the 19th inst., in which the defendant said that,
when sued in a county court, she went to the court to appear in person. R. A. Edgar
One of the officials said, “Why don't you go to a solicitor? I can refer
you to a reasonable man ; I will give you a card." He advised her to go, T. Wolferstan...
and she took the card and went to the plaintiff in the present action. The J. C. Woods
Common Serjeant : Did I understand you to say you were introduced to the plaintiff by an official of the court? The defendant said that was so. The Common Serjeant: What is his name? The defendant: I caonot remember; I think I would know the man again. The Common Serjeant
said it was a very objectionable practice for an officer of a court to recomLAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
mend a suitor to a solicitor, and was not in accordance with the practice of
officials. After a verdict had been returned for the plaintiff, the Common LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETIES.
Serjeant, addressing plaintiff's counsel, said he was sure that be, as a Law Studexts’ DEBATING Society.–October 25.-Mr. C. Augustus member of the bar, would approve of what he had said. The plaintiff was Anderson in the chair.—The subject for debate was: “That the case of about to interrupt, when the Common Serjeant remarked that the less he Manners v. Pearson & Sons (1898, 1 Ch. 501) was wrongly decided."
Mr. / (plaintiff) said the better. If there was an official, and he did not know
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE ON
APPEAL COURT Mr. George Boyd WICKES, solicitor, of 82, Bishopsgate-sireet Within,
Mr. Pemberton LL.B., solicitor, formerly of 15, Bedford-row, and on and after the 1st of Tuesday, Nov.
Church November, 1898, the business will be carried on under the firm name of Wednesday
Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Mr. Justice The list of House of Lords appeals up to the present comprises, it is
BYENE. stated, eleven cases of appeal from the High Court of England and four monday, Oct.
Mr. Farmer from Scotland. There are also seven causes waiting for judgment,
Wednesday.. including the important betting appeal of Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Thursday
Gresswell Co. (Limited).
COURT OF APPEAL. Burma in November, 1892, as judicial commissioner, and became judge of the High Court in May, 1896.
MICHAELMAS SITTINGS, 1898. Lord Justice Collins will preside at the inaugural law lecture of the
(Continued from p. 841.) ensuing session of the series arranged by the Solicitors' Managing Clerks'
FROM THE PROBATE AND DIVORCE DIVISION. Association, which will take place in the Middle Temple Hall on Tuesday, the 1st of November, when Mr. Crump, Q.O., will deliver a lecture on the
(Final List.) subject of “Malice.”
Shorthouse v Shorthouse appl of respt from order of The President, As Mr. Justice Mathew was proceeding up the oaken staircase of the Savary v Savary & Waters appl of respts from order of The President,
dated June 15, 1898 June 22 Queen's Bench judges' private entrance at the Law Courts on Wednesday
dated July 10, 1898 August 8 morning, says the Times, he slipped on the stairs and fell heavily forward, thereby sustaining a somewhat severe shaking. The learned judge, how
(Interlocutory List.) ever, later on took his seat in court as usual.
In re Druce Druce v Young appl of deft from order of The President, The Times says that in consequence of additional accommodation being dated August 8, 1898 August 17 required for the Land Registry Office in Lincoln's-inn-fields, the court of FROM THE COUNTY PALATINE COURT OF LANCASTER. the junior official referee, Mr. Pollock, has been transferred from Portugaltreet, Lincoln's-inn, to Room 305 at the Royal Courts of Justice. It is
(Final List.) expected that the other official referees will be removed to the Law Courts In re Worthington Worthington v Worthington appl of deft 0 before long
McGrath from order of The Vice-Chancellor of County Palatine of
1 2 3
1 2 3
Lancaster (Preston District), dated June 21, 1898 (order not perfected) | Apthorpe, Surveyor of Taxes (applt) v The Peter Schoonhofen Brewing July 16
Co, Id (respts) Revenue Side appl of respts from judgt of Justices FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
Wright and Channell, dated April 28, 1898 June 3 (In Bankruptcy.)
Manzel v Liegmann appl of pltff from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated May 1898.
13, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex June 3 In re F Trischler (espte the Debtor) against a receiving order made by Broggi y Robbins, Snelt, & Gore appl of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Mr Registrar Linklater, dated August 8, 1898
Day, dated May 20, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex June In re Strickland (expte the Debtor) against a receiving order made by Mr George Goldsmiths & General Burglary Insurance Association ld appl Registrar Hope, dated September 23, 1898
of defts from judgt of Justices Wills & Kennedy, dated May 20, 1898 In re O'Sullivan (expte the Debtor) against an order made by Mr
June 3 Registrar Hope, dated October 6, 1898, refusing to rescind the receiving Barnes & anor v Glenton & ors appl of deft A J Lewis from judgt of the order
Lord Chief Justice, dated May 23, 1898, at trial without a jury June 6 In re Dinkelspiel (expte the Petitioning Creditor) against an order made Pneumatic Tyre Coʻld y Puncture-Proof Pneumatic Tyre Co, id app of by Mr Registrar Hope, dated October 5, 1898, dismissing petition
pltffs from judgt of Mr Justice Wills, dated May 23, 1898, at trial
without a jury June 6 FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION.
In the Matter of The Royal College of Surgeons of England & In the (Interlocutory List.)
Matter of Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885 Revenue Side appl
of petners from judgt of Justices Wright & Channell, dated April 29, 1897.
1898 June 10 Wilkinson v Leyland appl of deft from order of Mr. Justice Kekewich, The Vartigom-1898–Folio 184 E P Babbie & ors v J Samuel & Son dated August 10, 1897 (order not perfected.) August 13
(Admiralty) appl of pltffs from judgt of Mr Justice Gorell Barnes, Lake v Harrison app àft from order of Mr Justice North, dated Aug :), dated May 27, 1898 June 14 1897 (order not perfected) Aug 20
Florsey Estate ld v Steiger & ors appl of J Steiger from judgt of Mr Boord v The African Consolidated Land & Trading Co, ld app of defts Justice Hawkins, dated May 11, 1898 June 15
from order of Mr Justice North, dated Dec 10, 1897 (order not por Horsey Estate ld v Steiger & ors appl of Petrifite id from judgt of Mr fected) Dec 18
Justice Hawkins, dated March 26, 1898, at trial without a jury, Stephens v Lydall appl of pltff from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated Middlesex June 16 July 9, 1898 August 4
Sargent & anr v Home Industries ld appl of defts from judgt of Mr Brookman v Associated Gold Mines of Western Australia ld appl of pltff Justice Darling, dated May 26, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex
from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated July 29, 1898 (order not June 21 perfected) August 6
Preece (liquidator, &c) v Ross & anr appl of deft Vautin from judgt of In re Hay Hay v Hockey appl of pltff from order of Mr Justice Kekewich Mr Justice Bruce, dated June 15, *1898, at trial without a jury, dated July 29, 1898 August 9
Middlesex June 22 Pugh v Stower appl of pitff from order of Mr. Justice Stirling, dated Eastern Telegraph Cold v Dent & ors appl of A & E Dent from judgt July 27, 1898 (order not perfected) August 12,
of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated June 21, 1898 June 27 S E Brinsmead & Sons ld v Lomax appl of dests The Consolidated The Queen V W H Pearce (Crown Side) appl of The London School Board
Exploration and Finance Co ld from order of Mr Justice North, dated from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated June 11, 1898 June 28 August 1, 1898 August 12
Church v Maxted & anr appl of pltff from judgt of Mr Justice Day, Ainsworth v Wilding appl of deft J Wilding from order of Mr Justice dated June 20, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex June 28 Stirling, dated August 9, 1898 (order not perfected) August 16
Hedges v Preston appl of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated Roberts v Heaton appl of pltff from order of Mr Justice Stirling, dated June 14, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex June 28 August 9, 1898 (order not perfected) August 23
Perfecta Seamless Steel Tube Co & anr v Baron & ors (exors &c) appl In re James Boyton & Rules of Supreme Court, 1883 appl of respts WE of defts from judgt of Justices Day & Lawrance, dated June 15, 1898 Holmes and anr from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated July 8, 1898
June 29 August 24
W G Allen & ors (applts) v The Vestry of the Parish of Fulham (respts) RE King ld v Gardner appl of deft from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, Crown Side appl of applts (except RB Lilles) from judgment of dated August 9, 1898 August 26
Justices Day & Ridley, dated June 30 Hutchings v The Seaford Urban Dictrict Council appl of pltff from order Powell v Marshall, Parkes & Co appl of defts from judgt of Justice Wills,
of Mr Justice Channell (sitting, &c), dated September 21, 1898 (order dated June 8, 1898, at trial with special jury, Middlesex July 1 not perfected) October 4
The John Griffiths Cycle Corpn ld v Humber & Cold appl of pliffs from FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
judgt of Mr Justice Phillimore, dated June 21, 1898, at trial without a
jury, Middlesex July 1 For Hearing.
BH Hill (applts) v The Crediton Urban District Council (respts) Crown (Final List.)
Side appl of respts from judgt of Justices Wills & Darling, dated
April 1, 1898 July 4 1898.
The Hotel & General Advertising Cold v Wickenden and anr appl of Griffiths v Hammond & anr appl of deft Hammond from judgt of Mr pltffs from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated June 21, 1898, at trial
Justice Mathew, dated May 2, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex without a jury, Middlesex July 4
In re J Hopkins, Solr & Solicitors 1888 appl of J Hopkins from Jacobs v Lindow appl of pltff in person from judgt of Mr Justice Bruce, judgt of Justices Day & Bruce, dated April 4, 1898 July 4 dated May 24, 1898, at trial with common jury, Middlesex (security Terry v Salaman appl of pltff from judgt of Mr Justice Kennedy, dated ordered) May 24
June 25, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex July 5 Davis v Witney Urban District Council appl of pltff from judgt of Dockrell v Dougall appl of pltff from judgt of Mr Justice Ridley, dated Justices Ridley & Channell, dated May 19, 1898 May 25
June 16, 1898, at trial with common jury, Middlesex July 9
Day, dated May 10, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex May 27 dated June 29, 1898 (jury discharged) July 9
Ingrams, id v Toole appl of deft from judgt of Justices Day & Bruce, The North-Eastern Railway Co (applts) » The Overseers of the Parish of dated April 1, 1898 July
Dalton & the Assessment Committee of Thirsk Union (respts) Crown Lush v Edgcumbe appl of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Wills, dated Side appl of applts from judgt of Justices Wills & Kennedy, dated May July 4, 1898, at trial with special jury, Middlesex July 11 16, 1898 May 28
Innes v Short & anr appl of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated G Cartwright v The Guardians of the Poor of Sculcoates Union, Kingston June 27, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex July 12
upon-Hull (respts) Crown Side appl of applts from judgt of Justices Griffiths v Deakin appl of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated Grantham & Ridley, dated May 14, 1898 May 28
June 24, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex July 13 J Richardson Willford v Same appl of applts from judgt of Justices Strong & ant v Tyler & ors appl of pltffs from judgt of Mr Justice Grantham & Ridley, dated May 14, 1898 May 28
Darling, dated July 12, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex J Walsh 7 Same appl of applts from judgt of Justices Grantham & July 15 Ridley, dated May 14, 1898 May 28
Wyler v Loewe appl of pitff from judgt of Mr Justice Bigham, dated A Robinson v Same appl of applts from judgt of Justices Grantham & June 23, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex July 15 Ridley, dated May 14, 1898 May 28
Macphail 'v Grabam & ors appi of pltff from judgt of Mr Justice Attorney-Gen and anr v Hudson appl of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Darling, dated July 11, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex Day, dated May 19, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex May 28°
July 16 Hudson Weyman appl of pltff from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated Curry v Stewart appl of dest from judgt of Mr Justice Day, dated July May 19, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex May 28
13, 1898, at trial, &c, Newcastle-on-Tyne July 18 In re an Arbitration between the Guardians of Rochdale Union and the Bughes & anr v Erith'Urban District Council appl of defts from judgt
Guardians of Haslingden Union appl of Haslingden Union from judgt of Mr Justice Wills, dated July 5, 1898, at trial with special jury, of Justices Ridley and Channell, dated May 20, 1898 (special case) Middlesex July 19 June 1
Times & Co v Ibe Sea Insce Co, ld appl of pltff from judgt of Mr The London & North-Western Ry Co (applts) v The Ogwen District Justice Bigłam, dated July 4, 1898, at trial without a jury, Middlesex
Council (respts) Crown Side appl of respts from judgt of Justices July 20
The Vlayor, &c, of Liverpool (applts) ~ The Asesment Ccmmittee of