Page images
PDF
EPUB

If he intended to appeal he ought to have asked the judge to take a note of the oral evidence, or to have had some note of it taken. If, by some accident, the note of the evidence had been lost, the court would have had power by way of indulgence to allow the evidence to be taken again. But the Chief Judge was not entitled to decide the case in the absence of the evidence upon which the county court judge had based his decision. In the Court of Appeal the parties agreed to admit a newspaper report of the oral evidence, and this was read to the court. And JESSEL, M.R., said that it would require a very strong case to induce the Court of Appeal, in a case of conflicting testimony, to overrule the decision of the judge who had seen and heard the witnesses. A third point in the case was this :-There was some evidence tending to show that the goods comprised in the deed were not in the apparent possession of the bankrupt at the time when the bankruptcy petition was filed, and, if this was so, the Bills of Sale Act would have had no application. This point, however, was not raised in the county court. It was raised before the Chief Judge, but not much insisted on, because he was in favour of the grantee on the other point. In the Court of Appeal the grantee's counsel endeavoured to raise the point, but the court held that, as it had not been raised in the county court, it could not be raised afterwards. JESSEL, M. R., said that if a point was not taken before the tribunal which heard the evidence, and evidence might have been adduced there which, by any possibility, would have prevented the success of the point if it had been raised, it could not be raised afterwards. The party was bound to raise the point in the first instance, so as to enable his adversary to meet it by other evidence. The evidence in the present case fell far short of conclusively proving that there had been a change in the apparent possession of the property before the filing of the petition, and therefore the point could not now be raised.-SOLICITORS, W. & J. Flower & Nussey; Hamlin & Grammer.

POWER OF LEASING-CONSTRUCTION

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ques

REPAIRING LEASE.-In a case of Truscott The Diamond Rock Boring Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 18th inst., a question arose as to the construction of a power of leasing contained in a settlement. The deed empowered the trustees to demise the property to any person who should "improve or repair the same, or covenant or agree to improve or repair the same.' The trustees entered into an agree ment to demise the property for seven years to the defendant company. The agreement provided (inter alia) "lessee to do necessary repairs." The action was brought by the trustees for the specific performance of the agreement. On behalf of the defendants it was contended that a lease upon the terms of the agreement would not be within the power. It was said that the power required that the lessee should do something in the nature of an improve ment to the property, something which would add to its value. Ordinary repairs would not be sufficient, but the property must be in such a state as that the putting of it into tenantable repair would result in a substantial improvement in its value, and it was not in that state. An ordinary repairing lease would not do. Chitty, J., acceded to this view, and held that the plaintiffs could not show a good tile to grant the proposed lease. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and HOLKER, L.JJ). JESSEL, M.R., said that the tion really arose on the words, 66 covenant or agree to improve or repair." It was proposed that the lessees should covenant to 'do necessary repairs." Was that a covenant to "repair" within the meaning of the power? His lordship had no doubt that it was. It was within the literal meaning of the words. The word "necessary" could neither add to nor take away from the meaning; if repairs were not necessary they were not wanted. The power was, therefore, literally complied with. Was there any reason for saying that it had not been complied with in substance? A covenant on the part of the lessee was necessary only to compel him to do that which otherwise the lessor would have to do, and if he covenanted to do the necessary repairs, that was all which could be wanted. Did the power mean to put in repair or to keep in repair? The latter would include the former. His lordship thought it meant that there should be a general covenant to repair-i.e., a covenant to do the repairs for all time during the continuance of the lease. If so, a covenant to do necessary repairs must mean a covenant to repair during the continuance of the term, and would be, both literally and substantially, within the power. As to the case of Doe v. Withers (2 B. & Åd. 896), whatever might be thought of some of the dicta there, it was not an authority binding on this court. The case of Easton v. Pratt (2 H. & C. 676) to a great extent governed the present case. The power there was differently worded, and, therefore, it was not exactly in point; but the power was stronger against the lease. In the present case there was no power to grant an ordinary lease at a rack-rent, and, if the respondents were right, no lease could be granted if the property was in good repair. In Easton v. Pratt the Court of Exchequer Chamber decided that a covenant to repair and keep in repair would comply with a power which required that a repairing lease should be granted. It was a decision that a Covenant to repair and keep in repair made a lease a repairing lease. It covered rather more than had to be decided on the present occasion. In his lordship's opinion, the agreement in the present case was entirely within the power. BRETT, L.J., said that every document must be construed according to the ordinary meaning of the English language, unless the words used had acquired some technical meaning, and some meaning must be given to all the words. This power was not expressed in any technical language. He could not agree that the words "improve" and "repair" were equivalent words. He thought the meaning was that the tenant was to take on himself all repairs which a landlord would ordinarily do-i.e., to put the premises in ordinary tenantable repair at the beginning of the term, if they were out of repair, and to keep them during the term in such repair by doing all which a landlord would ordinarily do during the term, and his lordship thought that the agreement imposed this obligation on the tenant. Therefore, though with some hesitation after the decision of Mr. Justice

Chi tty, he held that the proposed lease was within the power. HOLKER, L.J., said that it seemed to him that "necessary repairs" meant that the lessee was to do all the repairs. And as to the power, he thought the settlor meant that the property was not to be let to anyone unless he should agree either to improve it or to repair it. The reasonable construction of the word "repair" was that when the lease was made the lessee should be under an obligation to do or to covenant to do something which he would not otherwise have been obliged to do. The power required thisthat the lessee should either do repairs or enter into a covenant to do repairs generally—that is, all repairs that were needful. And his lordship thought that the agreement imposed this obligation on the defendants.SOLICITORS, G. R. Pilgrim; Norton, Rose, & Co.

ent.

COURT OF

BANKRUPTCY-PRACTICE-EVIDENCE-CROSS-EXAMINATIONRIGHT TO WITHDRAW AFFIDAVIT.-In a case of Ex parte Child, before the practice arose-viz., whether, when the respondent to a motion has filed Court of Appeal on the 26th inst., an important question of bankruptcy the witness who has made it, whether the respondent intends to read en affidavit, the moving party has an absolute right to cross-examine the affidavit or not. The applicant insisted that he had this right, and before the respondent's case was opened he asked his counsel to give an undertaking that he would use an affidavit made by the respondthe respondent being called by the applicant as a witness on his behalf. The This the counsel declined to do, though he had no objection to applicant's solicitor then insisted that he had a right to cross-examine the respondent on his affidavit at once. The respondent was called, and, by the advice of his counsel, he refused to answer. Mr. Registrar Hazlitt held that the respondent was bound to submit to the cross-examination. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and HOLKER, L.JJ.) inquired of the registrars in bankruptcy what is the practice in that court, and Mr. Registrar Murray gave the following certificate, in which all the other registrars, after fully considering the matter, concurred:-"As a general rule, and in the absence of objection, all the affidavits which may have been filed in due time (as regulated by the General Rules, No. 50, &c.), whether filed on behalf of the applicant or respondent, including those (if any) filed in reply, are, on the opening of the case, read to the court, and if notice to cross-examine any of the witnesses on the one side or the other has been given, the cross-examination of the applicant's witnesses is taken first and concluded, and then the cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses, after which the advocates for the respective parties are heard on the whole case. If, however, on the opening, the respondent alleges that there is no case, and objects to his affidavits being read until that question has been disposed of, such objection is always allowed, and it frequently happens that, by reason of the applicant's evidence failing to establish his case, the respondent is not called upon to read his affidavits, or to enter at all on his defence. The result would be analogous to a nonsuit. I have never known a case in which a party has been held compellable to read an affidavit (which he desired to withdraw) merely because it had been filed; but this would not preclude the opposite party from being allowed to examine the deponent as his own witness. The question sometimes arises in this way. An affidavit having been filed, the opposite party gives notice to cross-examine. By accident, or otherwise, the deponent is not present for cross-examination. On objection taken that the affidavit cannot be read, one of two alternatives happens. Either the party on whose behalf it has been filed elects to withdraw the affidavit, which the court invariably holds him at liberty to do; or, if he desires to use it, the court, on application, will (upon terms as to costs) adjourn the further hearing, that the deponent may attend for cross-examination." The certificate added that the particular point which had arisen in Ex parte Child had never before arisen in practice, so far as the registrars were aware. JESSEL, M. R., said that, under the Judicature Rules, the applicant would, on a motion in the High Court, have had the right which he claimed. But those rules did not apply to the Court of Baukruptcy, and the registrar's certificate settled conclusively what the practice in that court was. The appeal must be allowed, and the order of the registrar discharged. But the costs of the appeal would be costs in the matter. The applicant would be at liberty to give such further evidence as he might be advised. BRETT and HOLKER, L.JJ., concurred.-SOLICITORS, Eady: A. G.

Ditton.

CHOSE IN ACTION-POLICY OF ASSURANCE-ASSIGNMENT-NOTICEPRIORITY-SOLICITOR'S LIEN-30 & 31 VICT. c. 144-JUDICATURE ACT, 1873, s. 25, SUB-SECTION 6.-In a case of The West of England Bank ▾. Batchelor, before Fry, J., on the 24th inst., a curious question arose as to a solicitor's lien. B., who held a policy of insurance on his own life, in 1872 mortgaged it to O., and notice of the assignment was given to the insurance company. In 1875 the mortgage was paid off, and O. executed a re-assignment of the policy to B., and handed back the policy. Notice of the re-assignment was given to the company. B. left the re-assignment and the policy in the hands of his solicitors, to whom he then owed some costs. In 1878 he executed a mortgage of the policy to his bankers. On this occasion he told the bankers that he had lost or mislaid the original policy, and, upon his statement that he had done so, and that he had not assigned it, the insurance company gave him a certified copy of the original. The bankers were satisfied with this. They made inquiries of the company, and were informed that they had received no notice of any assignment of the policy, except that to O., and the bankers ascertained that O.'s claim had been satisfied. B.'s solicitors knew nothing of this transaction. Notice of the assignment to the bankers was at once given to the company, and acknowledged by them. It was admitted that B. had not been guilty of any fraud, but that he had forgotten that the original policy was with his solicitors. In 1880 the bankers were about to sell the policy, and they asked B. to make a fresh search for the

COUNTY COURTS.

MANCHESTER.

(Before JOHN A. RUSSELL, Esq., Q. C., Judge). January 6.-Ex parte Gillibrand, Re Frith and West. Right to distrain-Use and occupation.

original, and he thereupon communicated with his solicitors. They then informed the bankers that they had held the policy since 1875, and that they claimed a solicitor's lien on it for costs due to them by B. They also gave notice to the insurance company, to whom they had given no previous notice. The action was brought by the bankers against B. and the solicitors, claiming a declaration that they were entitled to priority over the solicitor's lien; an order for delivery up of the original policy; and the ordinary foreclosure judgment against the defendants. B. did not defend the action. The solicitors insisted on their lion. It was contended that they had lost their priority This was an application by T. W. Gillibrand, as trustee of the property by omitting to give notice of their claim to the insurance company in the first of Frith and West under resolutions for liquidation of their affaire, for an instance. FRY, J., said that the assignee of a chose in action took it sub-order declaring that O. Robinson and others (the respondents) were not, at ject to all equities affecting it, and he thought that this rule had been in no the date of the levying by them of a distress for rent, amounting to way altered by the Act 30 & 31 Vict. c. 144, or by section 25, sub-section 6, £3,358 188. 3d., upon the effects of the debtors on premises occupied by of the Judicature Act, 1873. A prior equity might be lost by negligence in them, entitled so to distrain for any sum whatever, or, in the alternative, not giving notice of it. The question, therefore, was whether the solicitors, that they were only entitled so to distrain for £1,860 or some lesser sum, in order that they might retain their lien, should have given notice to the comor, in the further alternative, that they were entitled so to distrain for a pany. What was the nature of a solicitor's lien? It was a merely passive lesser sum than £3,358 189. 33., and to declare for what sum they were right, a right to hold a piece of paper or a parchment until he was paid his costs. entitled to distrain, and for an order in accordance therewith. It gave the solicitors in this case no right to be paid out of the fund; it was By indenture, dated 28th of September, 1869, the Chamber Mill and merely a right to embarrass the plaintiffs. It was necessary that the assignee premises at Hollinwood, near Manchester, were demised to John Frith for of a fund in the hands of a trustee should, by notice to the trustee, make the term of three years from 30th of September, 1869, at the yearly rent himself a cestui que trust of the fund, and also, that by means of the notice, of £852 10s. At the expiration of that term the lessee continued the he should prevent the possibility of a fraud being committed. In the present tenancy from year to year, the rent being raised at sundry times to case the solicitors had no right to convert the insurance company into trustees £874 14s. per annum. In January, 1876, John West joined Frith in for them. They had only a right to the policy itself, the piece of paper; they partnership. In March, 1878, Frith gave written notice to quit in September had no right to the policy money. The mere fact that B. did not hold the paper following. In the month of September negotiations were entered into was notice to all the world that it was held by some one other than B., and between Frith and the landlords, and on the 11th of that month the that they held it was the only thing of which the solicitors could be bound landlord's solicitors wrote Frith's solicitors as follows:-" We yesterday had to give notice. No fraud could be committed by their not giving notice. an interview with our clients, the trustees of the late George Barlow, Esq., The bankers chose to run the risk of the paper being in the hands of some who (since our last communication with you) have been in consultation person other than B. who might have a lien on it. On this ground the with their beneficiaries, and have now come to a final decision. They are plaintiffs' case failed as against the solicitors. Another ground was that the prepared to grant to your client, Mr. John Frith, a lease of the Chamber plaintiffs had not used due diligence. They knew that a re-assignment had Mill and premises now in his occupation on the following terms:-(1) That been executed by O. They should have asked for it, and, if they had done so, all arrears of rent and accruing rent to the termination of the tenancy on and it had not been produced, its absence would have suggested to a prudent the 30th of September instant be paid in cash; or otherwise that additional person to ask whether it had not been executed in the presence of a solicitor, goods be deposited by Mr. Frith of adequate value to cover the amount. and who that solicitor was. This would have led to the discovery of both the (2) That the lease commence from the 1st of October next and be for a re-assignment and the policy. The action must be dismissed as against the term of either five or seven years (at the option of Mr. Frith), solicitors, but the ordinary foreclosure judgment must be pronounced as at a yearly rent of £550, payable quarterly in advance." The against B.-SOLICITORS, Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland; Cunliffe, Beaumont, letter also contained stipulations as to the covenants to be entered into by & Davenport. the lessors and lessee, respectively, and concluded, "On the unconditional acceptance of, and compliance with, the foregoing terms (but not otherwise), our clients (acting upon the report of Mr. James Hardman) consent to make an allowance to Mr. Frith of the sum of £335 17s. 5d. in respect of his Reclaim for improvements; but Mr. Frith will please distinctly to understand that this allowance must be treated as an act of grace, and is entirely condi tional upon the foregoing terms being carried out in their integrity." On the 23rd of September the landlords' solicitors again wrote Frith's solicitors, as follows: Our clients will not make any concession or deviate in any way from the terms of the proposed new lease, as indicated in our letter of the 11th inst., beyond this-namely, that on your clients making to their satisfaction the repairs and improvement; suggested by him, they will allow him the sum of £179 18s., being his estimate of the cost of such repairs and improvements." On the 25th of September Frith's solicitors wrote the landlords' solicitors as follows:-" Mr. Frith will be prepared to accept a lease for five years on the terms proposed as modified in your letter of the 23rd instant." The arrears of rent owing by Frith on the 30th of September, 1878, amounted to £2,117 163. 11d., for which the landlords held security which afterwards realized £1,000 12s. 4d. The debtors did not pay off those arrears or deposit any further security. They from time to time paid sums of money on account which, with the £1,000 realized from the security, reduced the arrears to £79 17s. No lease was ever given. Only one rent-note was sent in-viz., in May, 1880-in which the debtors were debited with rent at the old rate of £874 14s. The evidence of the debtors was that, after the termination of the tenancy in September, 1878, they never agreed to pay any more than the reduced rent of £550 per annum, and repudiated any liability for anything more. On the other hand, the landlords stated that they only with the letter of September 11, 1878, and claimed rent at the old rate from agreed to accept such reduced rental conditional on the debtors complying that date in default of such compliance. On the 17th of October, 1881, the landlords distrained upon the debtors' promises for £3,353 18s. 3d. for arrears of rent calculated at the higher rate. On the 24th of the same month the debtors filed their petition for liquidation, and Gillibrand was appointed receiver. Sale under the distress was postponed by consent until the appointment of a trustee, which took place at the first meeting of creditors on the 11th of November, Gillibrand, the receiver, being appointed trustee. On the 17th of November, the trustee tendered to the landlords £1,860 (the balance owing calculated on the basis of the letter of the 11th of September, 1878), and £100 for costs, which was refused. The value of the property seized was about sufficient to cover the amount distrained for, and if the landlords succeeded in their contention they would take the whole of the estate with the exception of about £150 of book debts. By arrangement, the property was being realized by the trustee, the proceeds to be held over to abide the result of the application, and consent was given to the county court exercising jurisdiction to determine the matter.

WILL-CONSTRUCTION GIFT OF RESIDUE BENEFICIAL INTEREST APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTOR-11 GEO. 4, AND 1 WILL. 4, c. 40.-In a case of Sto ey, Storey v. Jones, before Manisty, J., on the 23rd inst., a question was raised as to whether an executor took a gift of residue beneficially or not under the following will. The testatrix gave a'l she had in the world to the executor, thereout to pay her funeral and testamentary expenses and debts. She then gave certain specific legacies and appointed the defendant executor. For the plaintiff it was contended that there was a trust to pay the debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, which had partially failed, and therefore that the executor took the residue subject to a resulting trust in favour of the testatrix. For the defendant it was contended that the effect of the first gift was merely to charge the property with the debts, and that there was nothing to prevent the defendant taking beneficially as any other legatee. MANISTY, J., said that there were two classes of decisions applicable to the case, one where the property was given on trust, which partially failed, and the second, where the property was merely given charged with and subject to certain things, in which case the executor took beneficially what remained after satisfying the charge, and that these rules had been laid down in King v. Denison (1 V. & B. 261), which he considered good law. The present, he considered, fell within the second class of cases, and there was no trust which partially failed. The executor, therefore, took the residue beneficially. --SOLICITORS, Combe & Wainwright; Peacock & Goddard.

RAILWAY COMPANY-SUPERFLUOUS LAND-CONVEYANCE TO OTHER COMPANY-PRE-EMPTION-LANDS CLAUSES ACT, 1845, ss. 127, 128.-In the case of Hobbs v. Midland Railway Company, also before Manisty, J., on the 23rd inst., an important point was argued as to whether certain land was superfluous land under the 128th section of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. The lands were taken under their compulsory powers by the Midland Company, and within the period of ten years they had conveyed a part away to another railway company. The plaintiff had thereupon required the lands to be sold to him, as the defendants had not given him any offer of pre-emption, and on the defendants' refusal to convey to him he brought this action to Lave it declared that he was entitled to have the lands conveyed to him. It appeared that the lan's were occupied by sidings which were used by both the railway companies, and that they had been sold under a bona fide belief that the Midland Company were authorized to do so by two special Acts. MANISTY, J., was of opinion that the mere fact of a conveyance having been executed of the lands was not conclusive as to their being superfluous lands, and that such evidence might be rebutted. In the present case there was evidence that the lands were used by the Midland Company, although jointly with another company, and therefore he could not say that they were superfluous, although they might become so before the expiration of the ten years fixed by section 127. In his opinion, however, the Midland Company had no right to convey away the lands without first offering them to the plaintiff; and, therefore, there must be a direction setting aside the conveyance by them. SOLICITORS, Sawbridge; Beale & Co.; Twisden, Parker, & Co.

now

S. Taylor, for the trustee, in support of the application.-There never was any agreement or contract for tenancy after the expiration of the notice to quit in September, 1878. There was not that consensus ad idem necessary to constitute an agreement; consequently, although the landlords had a right to remuneration for use and occupation, they had not a right of distress. With regard to balance of old rent, the statute 8 Anne, c. 14, gives a right of distress only during six months after the expiration of the tenancy. He cited

Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, 411; Alford v. Vickery (C. & M. 280); Jenner v. Clegg (1 M. & R. 213); Williams v. Stiven (9 Q. B. 14); Tayleur v. Wildin (L. R. 3 Ex. 303); Hegan v. Johnson, (2 Taunt. 147); Dunk v. Hunter (5 B. & A. 322); Elgar v. Watson (C. & M. 494); Mayor of Thetford v. Tyler (8 Q. B. 95).

His HONOUR referred to Anderson v. Midland Railway Company (30 L. J. Q. B. 97).

A. Hopkinson, for the respondents. Where a lessee holds over after the expiration of his lease be continues as yearly tenant on the terms of the lease so far as they are applicable. Any act of the parties recognizing that one is tenant and the other is landlord is sufficient to create a yearly tenancy. It is not necessary that that recognition should be by payment of rent. He cited Platt on Leases, 2nd vol, 521; Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, 10th ed., 553; Robinson v. Hayward (3 C. & P. 432); Digby v. Atkinson (4 Camp. 275); Thomas v. Packer (1 H. & N. 669).

His HONOUR.-With regard to these cases it strikes me that they are not applicable to what we are dealing with here, which is not a holding over after expiration of the lease but after notice to quit. The lease expired in 1872. The tenancy was determined on notice to quit in September, 1878. I apprehend that immediately the 29th of September arrived the tenant was there under such circumstances that the landlords could turn him out if they liked, as he was a trespasser. By no process of distress can the amount of rent be settled between the parties. In order to entitle the landlords to distrain there must be some fixed rent. Hopkinson.-The rent is not uncertain because, sweeping away the agreement of September, 1878, the old terms remain.

His HONOUR.-If you sweep away the agreement there is no defined rent, and that being so, there is no right to distraio. The landlord is entitled to sue and get compensation, because there is a non-adjusted rent.

and tenant.

Hopkinson.-The acts of the parties show that there is a relation of landlord His HONOUR.-Assuming that it should turn out that the tenant is correct, and that he is liable for £550 instead of £870, there is no means of adjusting that by process of distress. The facts are these:-- -In September, 1878, this negotiation takes place. It is perfectly evident that the debtors considered that after the 29th of that month they were in possession of the property under the terms of the agreement. It is equally clear that the landlords looked upon the agreement altogether as void, and that they were entitled to hold the tenants upon the old terms of rent. Now I offer no opinion upon what the rights of the parties were, but it is abundantly plain that that was the contention on one side and the other, and that being so, the man was a mere occupier of the premises-he insisted upon his right to occupy 'under this agreement, which might or might not constitute him a tenant. The other side say, "No, we set this aside altogether, and until you pay the arrears of rent we will have nothing at all to do with the agreement"; and, therefore, they appear to me to be wide as the poles asunder. One says, We will recognize you as our tenant provided you do so-and-so, which the other side never complies with, and the relationship of landlord and tenant was never recognized by one side or the other except on those conditions. I am perfectly satisfied that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between these parties. There is no fixed rent agreed upon, and therefore the landlords could not distrain.

Hopkinson.-My second point is that the tenancy which existed on the expiry of the old lease never determined at all: Kelly v. Paterson (L. R. 9 C. P. 681).

His HONOUR.-All that class of cases I perfectly admit. I don't know what the effect might have been (sapposing we had been dealing with what took place, not in September, 1878, but in September, 1872, when the lease expired. The only difference to my mind is this, which is fatal to the respondents' case, that on the notice to quit in September, 1878, expiring, the relation of landlord and tenant absolutely determined. The reversion came back into possession of the landlords, and from that time forth the parties had not the relation of landlord and tenant, but landlord and trespasser, and that relation could only determine by some arrangement, which arrangement was never made.

Hopkinson.-I say that if they did not come to an agreement the old relationship continues.

His HONOUR.-You put the matter in a very fair and intelligible way. You say that there being no agreement the old state of things continues. I should be perfectly willing to listen to that, supposing there were nothing more, but it is shown from the facts that not only did the old agreement not continue, but that a new arrangement was contemplated between the parties, which arrangement itself came to nothing, and that whilst that was in a state of uncertainty this distress took place, and holding as I do that you cannot distrain unless the amount of rent is adjusted between the parties, either by implication or agreement, and there being no implication here, because it is repudiated, and there being no fresh arrangement between the parties, because they could not agree, therefore you have no right to distrain. There was no agreement, and there, it seems to me, is the weakness of your case. If things had gone on and nothing had taken place it would have been different, but that is not so. The parties were sufficiently active to destroy the old state of things, and not sufficiently active as to make a new agreement. make a declaration that the respondents had no right to distrain. Order accordingly, with costs.

Solicitors for the trustee, Sale, Seddon, Hilton, & Lord, Manchester.
Solicitors for the respondents, Wrigley & Morecroft, Oldham.

I will

The South-Eastern Railway (Channel Tunnel) Bill, the object of which was to construct a short railway near the commencement of the Channel Tunnel, was before the House of Commons examiners of private Bills on Wednesday, and was thrown out for non-compliance with the standing orders.

man.

OBITUARY.

MR. ARTHUR JAMES SHIRLEY.

Mr. Arthur James Shirley, who died under melancholy circumstances at Doncaster on Thursday, January 19, was the youngest son of Mr. W. E. Shirley, town clerk of Doncaster; the eldest son being Mr. W. Shirley Shirley, barrister-at-law. He was born in 1853; and was educated at Rugby School under Dr. Temple, the present Bishop of Exeter. In 1876 he was admitted a solicitor, and became a member of his father's firms-Shirley, Atkinson, & Shirley, of Doncaster, and Shirley, Atkinson, & Donner, of Scarborough. In 1879 he was elected by the corporation to the office of coroner for the borough of Doncaster, a very important post for so young a couple of years before this appointment. He had, however, satisfactorily filled the office of deputy-coroner for a His discharge of the duties of coroner answered the bighest expectations of his friends; tact, temper, and the office of coroner, he was clerk to the School Attendance Committee; and common-sense being displayed in an eminent degree. In addition to holding one of the last acts of his life, performed, indeed, only a few hours before his death, was to draw up the annual report of that committee. He was one of the church wardens of the Doncaster parish church, and joint honorary secretary of the Young Men's Christian Association. In addition to public usefulness, Mr. Arthur Shirley was much esteemed in private life. Of a kindly heart, and genial unpretending manners, he secured the attachment and confidence of all with whom he came in contact; and his funeral at the Doncaster Cemetery on Monday, January 23, was one of the largest ever seen in that town. Men felt generally that, short as was his career, and clouded its close, he had left behind him a bright example of usefulness and innocence. Mr. Arthur Shirley was a member of the Incorporated Law Society, and took attached to the Great Northern Railway Company, with a considerable know. an intelligent interest in all subjects relating to his profession. He was also ledge of the works of the undertaking. Politics did not much interest him, but he was a member of St. Stephen's Club, and gave an independent support to the Conservative party. Few careers so promising have been cut short so suddenly and so sadly.

MR. HENRY CHILD.

Mr. Henry Child, solicitor, of 2, Paul's Bakehouse-court, Doctors'-commons, died at his residence, Downs Park-road, Hackney, on the 21st inst., at the age of seventy-nine. Mr. Child was born in 1802, and was admitted a solicitor in 1837, and he had practised for over forty years in the city of London, bis private practice being very extensive. He was for many years in partnership with the late Alderman David Wise, M.P. (who was Lord Mayor of London in 1858), and more recently he was associated with his sons, Mr. John Child, who was admitted in 1868, and Mr. Theophilus Child, who was admitted in 1869. Mr. Child had an extensive practice before the licensing magistrates for the various districts in and round the metropolis, and he had been for many years solicitor to the Metropolitan Licensed Victuallers' Associa. tion. He was formerly returning officer for the Tower Hamlets, and on the division of that constituency by the Reform Act of 1867, he became returning officer for the borough of Hackney, but he resigned the latter office in 1874.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION IN LAWS, 1882.
EXAMINATION FOR HONOURS.
Jurisprudence and Roman Law.
First Class.

Wilberforce, Herbert William W. (Exhibition).—University College.
Second Class.

Adler, Elkan Nathan, B.A.-University College.
Clarke, Percy.-Private study.
Goodwin, Frederick.-Private study.
Symmons, Israel Alexander.-University College.
Lubbock, John Birkbeck.-Balliol College, Oxford.
Third Class.

Pemberton, Arthur.-Private study.
Webb, William Fisher.-Private study.
Maconachie, James Robert, B. A.—Private study.
Ritter, Frederick.-Private tuition.

Brownson, Thomas, B. A.-Owens College and private study.
Wood, Arthur Francis.-Private tuition.

LL.B. EXAMINATION, 1882. EXAMINATION FOR HONOURS.

Common Law and Equity.
First Class.

Evans, John William, B.Sc.-University College and Lincoln's-inn.
Bowen, Henry Storer, B.A.-Private study.
Second Class.

Hart, Isaac John.-Private study.
Stable, Daniel Wintringham.-Private study.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. FRANCIS FLEMING, barrister, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Colony of British Guiana, in succession to Mr. Hugh Reilly Semper, who has been appointed Chief Justice of Gibraltar. Mr. Fleming was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1866. He has been for several y ears Attorney-General of Barbadoes.

Mr. JAMES INSKIP, solicitor (of the firm of Brittan, Press, Inskip, & Crewdson), has been elected Chairman of the Taff Vale Railway Company, in succession to his partner, the late Mr. Heary Brittan. Mr. Inskip was admitted a solicitor in 1862.

Mr. ANDREW RUTHERFORD, advocate, has been appointed Sheriff Depute for the County of Midlothian.

Mr. HOWELL THOMAS, solicitor, of Neath and Maesteg, has been elected Clerk to the Maesteg Local Board. Mr. Thomas was admitted a solicitor in 1877.

Mr. JOHN JAMES EDGECOMBE VENNING, solicitor, of Devonport, has been appointed Admiralty Law Agent for Plymouth and Devonport, in succession to Mr. William Eastlake, deceased. Mr. Venning is town clerk of the borough of Devonport. He was admitted a solicitor in 1858.

Mr. WILLIAM RAMSDEN, solicitor (of the firm of Ramsden, Sykes, & Ramsden), of Huddersfield, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. Ramsden was admitted in 1878.

Mr. THOMAS WILLIAM PAYNE, solicitor, of 9, John-street, Bedford-row, London, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds to be executed by Married Women in and for the County of Middlesex and the Cities of London and Westminster, and the County of Surrey.

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

BUTE DOCKS LOAN SOCIETY.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 14, directed to be

NEW ORDERS, &c.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION.

Regulations of his lordship the Vice-Chancellor Sir Charles Hall as to attendance before his lordship in chambers.

The Vice-Chancellor directs that cases be called in the order in which they appear in the list.

That all parties in two cases only be admitted into the room at the same time.

That notice in writing of attending by counsel be left at obambers as follows, viz.:-In the A. to F. division on Thursday for the following Monday; in the G. to N. division on Monday for the following Wednesday; and in the O. to Z. division on Wednesday for the following Friday. And that in default of such notice as aforesaid being given no precedence be allowed to cases attended by counsel. January, 1882.

ORDER OF COURT.

Wednesday, the 25th day of January, 1882. Whereas, from the present state of the business before the Vice-Chancellor Sir Charles Hall and Mr. Justice Kay, it is expedient that a portion of the causes and matters assigned to Vice-Chancellor Hall should for the purpose only of trial or hearing be transferred to Mr. Justice Kay. Now I, the Right Honourable Roundell Baron Selborne, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby order that the several causes set forth in the schedule hereto be accordingly transferred from the Vice-Chancellor Sir Charles Hall to Mr. Justice Kay for the purpose only of trial or hearing, and be marked in the cause books accordingly. And this order is to be drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.

Schedule.

Jones v Jeffry es 1879 J 151
Williams v Brisco 1881 W 379
In re Luckie, decd Nixon v Luckie
1879 L 103
Uppleby v Horberry 1881 U 61
Hills v Reeves 1881 H 1,793
Hawkes v Holland 1881 H 2.261
Gregory Seaton 1880 G 0,733
Roche v Roche 1880 R 817
Grover v Robinson 1881 G 683

heard before Chitty, J., on Feb 4. Wooler, John st, Bedford row, agents for Morgan Kuhliger v Bailey 1879 K 101

and Scott, Cardiff, solicitors for the petitioner

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

[Gazette, Jan. 20.]

ANGLO-AMERICAN CATTLE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Jan 14, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Heritage and Co, Clement's lane, solicitors for the petitioner

ARGUS NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has, by an order, dated Jan 19, appointed Edmund Culpeper Weston, 74, Great Queen st, Lincoln's inn fields, to be official liquidator

CARDIFF SILICA FIRE BRICK COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 13, it was ordered that the company be wound up, Warry and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Burges and Co, Bristol, solicitors for the petitioners COOMBE SLATE QUARRIES, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 13, it was ordered that the Quarries be wound up. Rogers and Chave, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

DITTON BBOOK IRON COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 19. directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Crowdy and Co, Serjeants' inn, Fleet st, solicitors for the petitioners GENERAL FINANCIAL BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 23, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Crump and Son, Philpot lane, solicitors for the petitioner GRISWOLD AND HAIN WORTH, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 23, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Ashurst and Co, Old Jewry, solicitors for the petitioners

HAWKSTOR CHINA CLAY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Kay, J, has fixed Thursday, Feb 2, at 12, at the chambers of Chitty, J, for the appointment of an official liquidator NILGHERRY AND SOUTH INDIAN GOLD MINING SYNDICATE, LIMITED. -By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 13, it was ordered that the syndicate be wound up. Eastwood, Gt St Helen's, solicitor for the petitioner SOSA-Y-MENDAZ GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Jan. 14, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Heritage and Co, Clement's lane, solicitors for the petitioners UNITED SERVICE PROVISION MARKET, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 20, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Feb 3. Bolton and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, solicitors for the petitioner

VRON COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Bacon, V.C., dated Jan. 14, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Kennedy and Co., Clement's inn, Strand, agents for Jones, Wrexham, solicitor for the petitioner WHITWORTH PARK GRAND STAND COMPANY, LIMITED. By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan. 13, it was ordered that the said company be wound up. Harvey and Co., Chancery lane, agents for Marshall, Durham, solicitor for the petitioner [Gazette, Jan 24.]

COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. FIRST CHESHIRE PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 18, directed to be heard at the Vice-Chancellor's Chambers on Jan 30. Danger, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioner [Gazette, Jan. 20.]

WALLASEY BRICK AND LAND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented
Jan 21, directed to be heard before the V.C. at his chambers on Monday, Feb 6.
Mather, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioners
Gazette, Jan. 24.]

Williams v Williams 1881 W 3,544
Hodges v Newport 1880 H 1,491
Adams v Madox 1881 A 11
Hickman Say 1880 H 3,837
Warren Le Marchant 1880 W 2,150
Knowles v Clark 1878 K 124
Davies v Davies 1878 D 129
In re Rewcastle, decd, Nicholson v
Thompson 1881 R 1,088

In re Turner, decd, Turner v Barwell
1880
T 0,327
Macdonald v Paterson 1880 M 2,177
Ashburner v Preston 1880 A 0,284
In re Buxton, decd Farmer v Buxton
1878 B 128

[blocks in formation]

At the Stock and Share Auction Company's sale, held on the 20th inst., at their sale-room, Crown-court-buildings, Old Broad-street, the following were amongst the prices obtained :-Rhodes Reef Gold Mining £1 shares, 12s. 6d. ; Confederate States of America 100dols. Bonds, 3s. 4d.; Oriental Telephone £1 shares, 10s. paid, 98. 9d.: Spanish Three per Cents., 26 11-16; Indian Trevelyan Gold Mining £1 shares, fully paid, 12s. 6d.; Peruvian Six per Cents., 18; Hornachos Silver Lead Mining £10 shares, £510s.; Egyptian Unified, 66; New Zealand Kapanga £1 shares, 10s.; Great Eastern Railway, 72 per cent. Rio Tinto £10 shares, 243; and other miscellaneous securities fetched fair prices. At their sale held on the 24th inst., the following were amongst the prices obtained :-London Road Car £10 shares, £9; New Wye Valley Lead Mining £1 shares, 98.; Old Owlacombe Mines £1 shares, 4s. ; Wheal Jewell Mining, 78.; Oriental Telephone £1 shares, 10s. paid, 4d. dis. count; Belgium Date Coffee Company £5 shares, £2 103. paid, par; West Craven Moor Lead, 7. 6d. ; and other miscellaneous securities fetched fair prices.

NO MORE DARK ROOMS IN DAYTIME.-Use Chappuis' Daylight Reflectors. 30,000 are fitted in London alone. They supersede gas or lamp light in daytime, and promote health, comfort, and economy. They are also used as screens or blinds, and at the same time as daylight diffusers. For prospectuses, send two stamps to (S. J.) Chappuis, Patentee, 69, Fleet-street.-[ADVT.

[blocks in formation]

BUCKLEY, JEREMIAH, Salford, Lancaster, Millwright. Feb 1. Newton, Stockport BURKE, ANNE, Devonshire rd, Holloway. Feb 20. Cattell, Bedford row BUSH, THOMAS, Honing, Norfolk, Farmer. Feb 15. Wilkinson, North Walsham, Norfolk CHABOT, CHARLES PHILIP, Queen's gdns, Gent. Mar 16. Thomas, South sq, Gray's inn CHASE, GEORGE, Hamstead cottage, Great Barr, Stafford, Commercial Traveller. 1. Allen, Birmingham COLE, GEORGE, Hereford, City Surveyor. April 1. EVANS, WILLIAM, Cornwall gdns, Kensington, Esq. circus

Humfrys, Hereford

Mar

Feb 28. Janson and Co, Finsbury

[blocks in formation]

KEMPSON, HELEN LOUISA, South Lowestoft, Suffolk. Mar 1. Allen, Birmingham
KIDSON, CHARLES, Sunderland, Durham, Solicitor. Feb 1. Kidson and Co, Sunderland
RAWSTHORNE, HENRY, Haslingden, Lancaster, Gent. Mar 21. Tattersall, Blackburn
ROBSON, HARRIETT, Hartwith, York. Feb 20. Langhorne, Wakefield
SEARLE, JANE, Hoddesdon, Hertford. Feb 7. Armstrong and Lamb, Old Jewry
STEPHEN, GEORGE MILNER ELMSLIE, Caulfield, Victoria, a Clerk in Her Majesty's
Customs. Feb 6. Wadeson and Malleson, Austin Friars

STEPHEN, HASTINGS FITZEDWARD MURPHY, St Kilda, Melbourne, Victoria, Surveyor.
Feb 6. Wadeson and Malleson, Austin Friars

Feb 6. Wadeson Whatley and Son, The Forbury,

STEPHEN, the Hon JAMES WILBERFORCE, Victoria parade, Fitzroy.
and Malleson, Austin Friars
WAINWRIGHT, HARBIET, Wargrave, Berks.
Reading

WILSON, JOHN, Torrington sq, Esq. Mar 25.
WILTON, HENRY HOOPER, Gloucester, Esq.

Feb 18.

Comins, Great Portland st, St Marylebone Feb 13. Wiltons and Riddiford, Gloucester [Gazette, Jan. 6.] BURGASS, WILLIAM, Nottingham, Managing Director of the Nottingham Patent Brick Co. Feb 20, Wells and Hind, Nottingham CALLAGHAN, THOMAS FITZGERALD, Esq., C.M.G., Bahamas. Carey st, Lincoln'sinn

Holborn

Mar 25, Arnold and Co, CLEMENTS, JOHN THOMAS, Deptford, Kent, Butcher. Mar 25. Bristow, Greenwich CUSHEE, EDWARD, Holloway rd, Islington, Gent. Feb 25. Layton and Jaques, Ely pl, DREWE, JEANNE SUSANNE ADELE, Grange, Broadhembury, Devon. Feb 18. Buckingham, Exeter EVANS, WILLIAM, Cornwall gdns, Kensington, Esq. Feb 28. Janson and Co, Finsbury GOUBBAUX, MARIE THERESE HORTEUSE, Charrington st, St Pancras. Feb 15. Argles and Argles, Gracechurch st GUEST, EMILA ANN, Birmingham. Feb 18. Cottrell and Son, Temple row, Birmingham HARRIS, Rev HERBERT, Great Malvern, Worcester. Feb 28. Richards, Weekday cross, Nottingham

circus

HAWKESWORTH, JOHN, Trebovir rd, South Kensington, Esq. Feb 21. Skewes-Cox, Red

Lion sq

HEWITT, PRISCILLA, Connah's Quay, Flint. Feb 6. Moss and Sharp, Chester
HUNTER, DAVID, Greek st, Scho, Tailor. Mar 30. Allen and Son, Carlisle st, Soho sq
KEDGE, ROBERT, Middleborough, Colchester, Essex, Licensed Victualler.
Laundy and Son, Cecil st, Strand

LEGGE, EDWIN GILLINGHAM, Philpot lane, Solicitor. Feb 28.
Victoria pk

OSBORNE, JOHN WILLIAM WILLOUGHBY, Gwalior, East Indies.
and May, Lincoln's inn fields

QUENNESSEN, FRANCOIS ADRIEN, Boulevard Eugene, France,
Argles and Argles, Gracechurch st

ROBERTS, OWEN, Hulme, Manchester, out of business. Feb 20.
Manchester

WARNER, JAMES, Commercial rd, East Dereham, Norfolk, Gent.
Co, Wymondham

WOODALL, WILLIAM, Kingston upon Hull, out of business.
Barton upon Humber, Lincoln

Feb 10.

Stokes, Chisenhale rd,
May 10. Shoubridge
Merchant. Feb 15.
Diggles and Ogden,
Mar 3. Whites and

Mar 1. Goy and Cross, [Gazette, Jan. 10.]

[blocks in formation]

COURT PAPERS.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE ON

Date.

[blocks in formation]

COURT OF APPEAL.

V. C. BACON.

30

Mr. Merivale

Mr. Pemberton

V. C. HALL. Mr. Leach

....

31

King

1

Merivale

Pemberton

....

2

[ocr errors]

King

Ward

Merivale

Pemberton

4

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. Cobby

31

Koe

1

Clowes

Thursday Friday Saturday.

2

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

ΚΑΥ.

Jackson

Cobby

Mr. Justice

Mr. Clowes

Mr. Justice
CHITTY.

Mr. Farrer

Teesdale

Farrer

At a meeting of the Law Amendment Society held on Monday, at Adamstreet, Adelphi, Mr. Richard B. Martin, M.P., in the chair, two papers dealing with this subject were read and discussed. The first, "On the Bankruptcy Law, with a view to Legislation in the coming Session," was by Mr. James Motteram, Q.C., judge of the Birmingham County Court; the second, "Bankruptcy and Liquidation," by Mr. Harold Brown, a solicitor. Mr. Motteram, whose paper was read for hira by Mr. Denny Urlin, said the problem was to frame a law which, while it should be effectual to deter dishonest men from dishonesty, should at the same tine not bear with severity upon men who, though unfortunate, were yet honest. Pointing out that some of the difficulties arose from temptation to fraud which beset many of those interested in the property of an insolvent debtor, he remarked that there must be officialism of some kind introduced into the administration of the bankruptcy laws, as it had been conclusively proved that whatever was left to the creditors to do was as a rule left undone. There must be a sufficient elemen of officialism, but the less the better. Criticising certain provisions of the Bill introduced last session, which he feared might possibly lead to collisions between the Board of Trade and courts of law, he defined the duties he would impose on the official receiver in the interest, not of a few, but of the whole body of creditors. Among other suggestions for the amendment of the law, Mr. Motteram, speaking from his experience of the hardships suffered by small de tors, sail he would let county court judges have power to give relief in certain cases to poor persoas who ought not to be compelled to carry their debts about with then for a lifetime. Mr. Harold Brown, in his paper, urged that the insolvent debtor should be made to feel that he was on his trial, and that the burden of justification should be thrown upon him and not (as too often it seemed to be at present) upon the creditor. Bankruptcy should be made a disgrace, instead of a mere whitewashing and introduction to a new career of happy-go-lucky speculation or deliberate brigandage.

SALE OF ENSUING WEEK.

Feb. 1.-Mr. F. ELLIS MORRIS, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Reversion (see advertisement, Jan. 14, page 4).

LONDON GAZETTES.

Bankrupts.

FRIDAY, Jan. 20, 1882.

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.
To Surrender in London.

Austin, Henry Joseph De Bruno, jun, Queen Victoria st, Commission Agent. Pet Dec

19. Murray. Feb 3 at 11 Barton, Harry Augustus, Queenhithe, Match Manufacturer. Pet Jan 17. Murray. Claridge, D Feb 3 at 11.30 Upper Canton pl, South Lambeth rd, Provision Dealer. Pet Jan 17. Murray. Feb 3 at 11 Herrmann, Edward, Leyton rd, Stratford, Cheesemonger. Pet Jan 18. Brougham. Renaud, Louis Gilbert, Wigmore st, Cavendish sq, Dress Maker. Pet Jan 18. Brougham. Feb 1 at 12 To Surrender in the Country.

Jan 31 at 12.30

Bartlett, Caroline, Weston-super-Mare, Hotel Keeper. Pet Nov 19. Lovibond. Bridgwater, Feb 1 at 11

« PreviousContinue »