Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the action, and ought to pay the cost of it up to that time. But, considering all the circumstances, justice would be done by giving no costs of the application in either court. BAGGALLAY, L.J., said the effect of Berdan v. Greenwood (26 W. R. 902, L. R. 3 Ex. D. 251) was that, when money was paid into court by a defendant, the plaintiff could either take it out in satisfaction of his claim, or he might take it out and go on with the action to recover a larger amount. But, in any event, even if the defendant ultimately proved that he was under no liability to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to retain the money which he had taken out. The trustee intervened in the action, and took the benefit of it; and there was no reason for depriving the solicitor who brought the action of that charge for his costs which he would have had if the trustee had not intervened. BRETT, L.J., said that Berdan v. Greenwood was really an authority for saying that money paid into court by a defendant who denied his liability in toto was "recovered or preserved" for the plaintiff in the action by the exertions of his solicitor. By reason of the plaintiff's bankruptcy in this case, the money went to his trustee. The trustee took the benefit of the action, and the bankrupt's solicitor ought to have a charge for his costs up to the date of the trustee's intervention. LINDLEY, L.J., expressed his opinion to the same effect.SOLICITORS, F. C. Tudor; J. J. Winser; Beyfus & Beyfus.

FRIENDLY SOCIETY-LOAN BY TRUSTEES ON UNAUTHORIZED SECURITYRIGHT TO RECOVER FROM BORROWER-ILLEGAL TRANSACTION-FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1875 (38 & 39 VICT. c. 60), ss. 16, 18.-On the 5th inst., the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) reversed the decision of Fry, J., in the case of Coltman v. Coltman (29 W. R. 923, 25 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 779). The question was whether a loan by the trustees of a friendly society out of its funds to a person not a member of the society, on his personal security, is made by the above Act an illegal transaction, so that the trustees cannot recover the money from the borrower. Fry, J., held that the loan was illegal, and that the money could not be recovered. Section 16 of the Act authorizes the trustees of a friendly society to invest its funds, with the consent of the committee of management, in certain specified ways, and "upon any other security expressly directed by the rules of the society, not being personal security, except as hereinafter authorized with respect to loans." And section 18 provides for the making of loans to members of the society on their personal security. JESSEL, M. R., was of opinion there was nothing in the Act to make the loan illegal. It did not even expressly prohibit a loan on personal security; it merely made it a breach of trust for the trustees to make such a loan. There was nothing to make the loan per se illegal. His lordship was not satisfied that an hibition to the trustees to lend on personal security would have made the lending an illegal transaction. There would only be an appropriation of the money to the trustees' own purposes. But it was not illegal to lend the

express pro

There being

money so appropriated, or to recover it from the borrower.
nothing illegal in the borrowing, or in the purpose to which the money was
applied, his lordship was quite unable to understand how the borrower
could set up the defence that he was relieved from his liability to repay the
money on the ground that it belonged to a friendly society. BRETT, L.J.,
said that section 16 was not a prohibitory one, but an enabling one.
Without it the trustees would have had no authority to lend the money of
the society on any security; they required a statutory power to enable the m
to do it. The money was lent without authority. Did it follow that the
contract was an illegal one? His lordship thought not. The borrower

could not set up the want of authority to lend as a defence to an action for
the money which he had agreed to repay. LINDLEY, L. J., said that the alleged
illegality came to this, that the lenders of the money got it from an
improper quarter. There was nothing illegal in the borrower's promissory
note.-SOLICITORS, Robinson, Preston, & Stow; Wright & Law.

admitted, was a sound general rule. It was not an absolute rule of law, so that a judge would be bound to direct a jury as a matter of law that they could not find for such a claim if it was supported by no other evidence. But the judge ought to warn the jury of the danger of acting on such evidence if uncorroborated. If, however, the jury refused to act on such evi. dence, no court would set aside their verdict; and, in the same way, the Court of Appeal would not disturb the decision of a judge who had declined to act on such evidence.—SOLICITORS, Pyke & Minchin; Argles, Rand-Bailey, § Argles.

[blocks in formation]

ADDITIONAL RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORd. 6, SCHEDULE "COPIES.”—In a case of Warner v. Mosses, before the Court of Appeal on the 5th inst., the cation, the costs of copies of the pleadings for the use of counsel and the question arose whether, on the taxation of the costs of an interlocutory appli. court ought to be allowed. The defendant had moved to strike out part of an affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, on the ground that it was scandalous. Bacon, V.C., refused the motion, but the Court of Appeal ordered the passages in question to be struck out, and that the plaintiff should pay the costs of the application in both courts. On taxation the master refused to allow the costs of copies of the pleadings for the use of counsel, of a Copy for the use of the Vice-Chancellor, and three copies for the use of the three judges of the Court of Appeal, on the ground that the rule is not to allow costs of copies of pleadings before the trial of an action. Bacon, V.C., refused to alter the decision of the taxing master. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., BRETT and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) held that the cost of copies of the pleadings must be paid by the plaintiff. No such general rule should be laid down. On some interlocutory applications it might be essential that the court should look at the pleadings, as in the present case, in which the passages complained of would not be scandalous if they were relevant, and the court could not judge of their relevancy without carefully examining the pleadings.-SOLICITORS, Janson, Cobb, & Pearson; J. W. Sykes.

COMPANY-WINDING UP-APPLICATION FOR ORDER THAT LIQUIDATOR TAKE COUNSEL'S OPINION AS TO PROCEEDING AGAINST DIRECTOR-LOCUS 5th inst. the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M. R., and BRETT and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) STANDI-BANKRUPT CONTRIBUTORY-COMPANIES ACT, 1862, s. 77.—On the reversed the decision of Fry, J., in the case of In re The Cape Breton Company (25 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 779). The question was as to the locus standi to apply for an order directing the liquidator of a company in liquidation to consult counsel as to taking proceedings against one of the directors to recover moneys alleged to have been improperly received by him out of the purchasemoney paid by the company for a mine which they had acquired. An order was made by Fry, J., in chambers, upon the application of a person who was liquidator the sum of £100, the liquidator undertaking to return the same to on the list of contributories, that, upon the applicant depositing with the him, or such part thereof (if any) as the judge should thereupon direct, the liquidator should forthwith proceed to lay a case before counsel, and obtain his opinion on recovery by the liquidator from the director of the moneys in question, and what steps (if any) could be taken for the what was the most expedient course to adopt for the purpose, and it was ordered that, upon counsel's opinion being obtained, the liquidator should forth with apply to the judge for directions. An application to discharge this order was made by two persons who were creditors and contributories of the company, and who had liberty to attend the proceedings in the winding up, on the ground that the contributory who had obtained the order was a bankrupt and undischarged, and that consequently he had no interest in the matter. Fry, J., said that so long as the applicant was on the list of contributories be must be taken to have an interest, and to be entitled to make the application. Moreover, as the proceedings were to be taken at his expense, no section 77 of the Companies Act, 1862, the trustee in the bankruptcy repreThe Court of Appeal said that by virtue of sented the bankrupt for all the purposes of the winding up. He had no locus standi to make the application, and there was no jurisdiction to make the order on his application. The order was accordingly discharged.-SOLICITORS, Dollman & Pritchard; Harper, Broad, & Battcock; Norton, Rose, & Co.

MARRIED WOMAN-NEXT FRIEND-AUTHORITY-SOLICITOR-COSTS.-harm could be done to anyone. In a case of Schjott v. Schjott, before the Court of Appeal on the 4th inst., the question arose whether a defendant to an action purporting to be brought by a next friend on behalf of a married woman, was entitled to have the action dismissed on the ground that the next friend had no authority from the married woman to bring the action. The defendant alleged that the next friend had no authority; the next friend made an affidavit, in which he did not say he had authority, and no authority was proved. Bacon, V.C., held that a next friend could not be interrogated as to his authority; and that, until the married woman came forward and said that she had given no authority or someone else proved it, the case must go on. He, therefore, refused the defendant's application to dismiss the action. The point was not argued in the Court of Appeal, but the court (JESSEL, M. R., and BAGGALLAY, BRETT, and LINDLEY, LJJ.) treated it as a matter of course that the next friend, if challenged by the defendant, was bound to prove his authority. They came to the conclusion, in the present case, that the married woman had not authorized the next friend to bring the action, and they dismissed the action, ordering that the next friend's solicitors should personally pay the costs in both courts.-SOLICITORS, Stokes, Saunders, & Stokes; Best, Webb, & Templeton.

CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE OF DECEASED MAN-UNCORROBORATED EVIDENCE OF CLAIMANT.-In a case of Stevens v. Morson, before the Court of Appeal on the 4th inst., the court (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY. BRETT, and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) dismissed an appeal from the refusal of a claim made against a testator's estate, on the ground (inter alia) that there was no evidence in support of the claim but that of the claimant himself. LINDLEY, L.J., said that the rule that a claim against the estate of a dead man, sup. ported only by the uncorroborated testimony of the claimant, would not be

COSTS-TAXATION-SHORTHAND WRITER'S NOTES OF EVIDENCE-SPECIAL DIRECTION BY COURT-ORD. 58, RR. 11, 12.-In a case of Earl De La Warr v. Miles, before the Court of Appeal on the 9th inst., a question arose as to the allowance on the taxation of the costs of a successful appellant of the costs of the notes taken by a shorthand writer of the oral evidence given trial given judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, and the on the trial before the judge of first instance. Bacon, V.C., had at the Court of Appeal (James, Brett, and Cotton, L.JJ.) allowed the appeal, and application, however, was made to the Court of Appeal for any special gave the appellants the general costs of the action and of the appeal. No direction for the allowance of the costs of copies of the shorthand notes of the evidence at the trial, and no such direction was inserted in the order. The order having been drawn up and passed and entered, but the taxation of costs not having been made, the defendants now applied for a direction to the taxing master to allow the costs of copies of the shorthand notes. The court (JESSEL, M.R., LUSH, and LINDLEY, L.JJ.), refused the application. They said that the rule was laid down by the Court of Appeal in Ashworth v. Outram (27 W. R. 93, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 483) that such costs would not be allowed unless a special direction for their allowance was given by the judge who tried the action, or by the Court of Appeal, and that rule had been consistently followed. And the application for such a direction ought to be made at the trial or the hearing of the appeal, or at any rate

before the judgment or order was passed and entered. After that had been done it became a judgment or order of the court, which the court had no power to alter except in the case of an accidental slip. JESSEL, M.R., said that any other rule would cause the greatest inconvenience. The present case showed the utility of such a rule, for, in order to determine whether shorthand notes were necessary, the court, which was now constituted entirely of judges different from those who heard the appeal, must rehear it. As a general rule (though there were exceptional and extraordinary cases) the notes of the evidence taken by the judge, and certainly when supplemented by the notes taken by counsel, were amply sufficient. A shorthand writer was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts of the case, and during the course of the trial he was often changed, and, therefore, he was very liable to make mistakes. Moreover, if he did not understand the answer of a witness, he could not, as the judge could, ask the witness to repeat it. It was impossible, therefore, to say that, as a general rule, a shorthand writer's notes were the most perfect record of the evidence. The costs of making copies of them were very great, and the copies increased the costs of counsels' briefs and also tended to the waste of the time of the court with immaterial evidence. There were no doubt some exceptional and extraordinary cases in which it was desirable that there should be shorthand notes of the evidence, and in those cases the court could give a special direction for the allowance of the costs of copies of the notes. LUSH, L.J., said that it was the duty of the junior counsel and also of the judge to take a full note of the evidence. And, if the order did not contain a direction to allow the costs of copies of shorthand notes, the taxing master had no discretion to allow those costs.-SOLICITORS, Horne, Hunter, & Birkett; Cope & Co.

WILL CONSTRUCTION-"CHILDREN"-LEGITIMACY-FOREIGN LAW.-In a case of Forrestier v. Buddicombe, before Fry, J., on the 4th inst., a question arose as to the construction of the word "children" in the will of a domiciled Englishman. He had given the income of a trust fund to F. for his life, and after his death the trustees were to hold the fund on trust for F.'s children. The eldest child of F. was born in France previously to the marriage of his parents, but by their subsequent marriage he became, according to the law of France, legitimated. The question was whether he was to be considered as legitimate for the purpose of taking under the will, as one of the children of F. FRY, J., held that the principle of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in In re Goodman's Trusts (29 W. R. 586, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 266, 25 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 470), as to the construction of the word "children" in the Statute of Distributions, applied, and that the eldest child was entitled to share in the fund.-SOLICITORS, Darley & Cumberland.

PRACTICE TRUSTEE RELIEF ACT-PAYMENT OUT OF COURT-MARRIED WOMAN PETITIONER-SEPARATE ESTATE-MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1870, s. 11.-A point upon the construction of section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 93), arose upon an application to Vice-Chancellor Hall in Re Fisher's Trusts, upon the 9th inst. A petition had been presented under the Trustee Relief Act for payment out of court of a fund, certain shares in which were claimed as separate estate by two married women, who were co-petitioners with other parties interested. Their husbands were made respondents, but they did not petition by next friends. The petition stated their alleged title, the fact of their respective marriages having taken place since August 9, 1870, and their desire that the application should be considered as made under the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act, 1870. Section 11 of that Act provides that "a married woman may maintain an action in her own name for the recovery of any wages, earnings, money, and property by the Act declared to be her separate property, or of any property belonging to her before marriage, and which her husband shall, by writing under his hand, have agreed with her shall belong to her after marriage as her separate property, and she shall have the same remedies, both civil and criminal, against all persons whomsoever for the protection and security of such wages, earninge, moneys and property, and of any chattels or other property purchased or obtained by means thereof for her own use, as if such wages, earnings, money, chattels, and property belonged to her as an unmarried woman; and in any indictment or other proceeding it shall be sufficient to allege such wages, earnings, money, chattels, and property to be her property." Some of the respondents being resident abroad, an order had been obtained for leave to serve copies of the petition out of the jurisdiction, but the registrar had refused to draw up that order, upon the ground that the married women could not properly apply to the court without next friends. Application was, therefore, now made to the court that the order for service out of the jurisdiction might be passed and entered, notwithstanding that two of the petitioners were married women without next friends. Reference was made to the foregoing section, and to Moor v. Robinson (27 W. R. 312). HALL, V.C., considered that the case was covered by the term "remedies," and gave the direction as requested.-SOLICITORS, Woodbridge & Son.

PRACTICE-ADDING PLAINTIFF-CONSENT-RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 16, R. 13.-In a case of Cox v. James, before Chitty, J., on the 4th inst., an application was made for leave to add a new plaintiff, and a question arose as to whether the consent mentioned in ord. 16, r. 13, and required to be given before a plaintiff is added, must be in writing. CHITTY, J., was of opinion that the consent need not be in writing, and that it was sufficient if the solicitor for the existing plaintiff stated he was authorized to consent on behalf of the proposed new plaintiff, the solicitor taking the ordinary responsibility of using a person's name as a plaintiff.-SOLICITOR, Worthington Evans.

ASSURANCE COMPANY-TRANSFER OF BUSINESS TO ANOTHER COMPANYADVERTISEMENT IN GAZETTE-TIME-PETITION-HEADING.-In a case of

In re Colonial Assurance Corporation (Limited), before Chitty, J., on the 5th inst., a petition was presented by the society, under section 14 of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, for the confirmation by the court of a trangfer of its business to another company. The petition was only entitled in the matter of the Life Assurance Act and not in that of the Companies Act, 1862. Notice of the application was inserted in the London Gazette on the 1st inst. only, and a question was raised as to whether this was a sufficient time before the hearing of the petition. It appears that there is no time pointed out by the Act for the advertisement, and no rules have been made under the Act. Copies of the proposed deed of transfer had been forwarded to all the policyholders in the transferring company and no dissents to the proposed transfer had been received. The transferor and transferee company had both power to transfer or amalgamate with another company. CHITTY, J., confirmed the transfer, and held that the petition need not be entitled in the matter of the Companies Acts, and that the advertisement in the Gazette was, under the circumstances, sufficient.-SOLICITORS, Wynne, Baxter, & Rance.

WILL-CONSTRUCTION-GIFT TO SECOND COUSINS-FIRST COUSINS ONCE REMOVED.-In a case of Re Bonner (deceased), Tucker v. Good, before Chitty, J., on the 8th inst., a question arose on the construction of the will of the testator in the cause, whether a gift to second cousins was good in favour of first cousins of the testator once removed. The testator had mentioned his second cousins in four separate parts of the will, and his residuary gift was in their favour. It appeared that the testator had no second cousins, strictly so called, either at the date of his will or at his death, but he had some first cousins once removed, whom he knew. It was contended that as there were no second cousins in whose favour the gift could apply, the property went to the next of kin. CHITTY, J., said that the testator was anxious to make a provision for his "second" cousins, and as he had no second cousins, strictly so called-i.e., persons descended from the same great grandfather-it was reasonable to say that the testator was pointing to those individuals whom he knew and desired to benefit. Moreover, he thought that that view was within the authorities on the subject. As he read the case of Re Parker (L. R. 15 Ch. D. 528), the Master of the Rolls had held that the words had a well-defined legal meaning; but there were two exceptions, one where the context altered the meaning, and the other where there were no persons at the date of the will strictly answering the description. In that case there was a misdescription, and the court was entitled to find out what class of legatees the testator intended to describe. Slade v. Forth (9 Sim. 386) he thought also was an authority to the same effect. In the present case he thought the testator intended his first cousins once removed to take, and he should so decide.-SOLICITORS, Combe & Wainwright; Lovell, Son, & Pitfield; Pattison, Wigg, & Co.

OR

PRACTICE-ATACHMENT OF DEBT-EQUITABLE DEBT-" DEBTS OWING ACCRUING"-Vendor AND PURCHASER-PURCHASE-MONEY WHEN ATTACHABLE-RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 45, R. 2.-In a case of Howell v. Metropolitan District Railway Company, before Chitty, J., on the 9th inst., an important point was raised as to the effect of garnisbee orders nisi in cases of specific performance. It appeared that certain land, the property of the plaintiff, had been taken by the railway company, and the purchase-money payable had been fixed by the verdict of a jury on November 27, 1878. A writ was subsequently issued for the specific performance of the contract, and on May 8, 1879, the usual judgment for specific performance was pronounced, and, on a good title being found, the purchase-money was ordered to be paid. The chief clerk subsequently inade his certificate, certifying that a good title was found, on December 4, 1878. By the order on further consideration the purchase-money was ordered to be paid into court, and was now in court. The vendor had given several mortgages and charges on the fund, and various judgment creditors had obtained garnishee orders nisi under ord. 45, r. 2, at various periods subsequent to the verdict, and up to, and also after, the order on further consideration, and the payment into court. The question was now argued on an adjourned summons, to ascertain the priorities, and whether any of the garnishee orders nisi effected any charge on the fund in court. CHITTY, J., said the question depended on the construction to be put upon ord. 45, r. 2, and particularly on the words "debts owing or accruing." According to the authorities under the rule, and the Common Law Procedure Act, the debts must be due and accruing, and they must also be in the hands of the garnishee. As to the first point, whether there was an attachable debt at the time of the verdict, in his opinion the 49th and 50th sections of the Land Clanses Consolidation Act, 1845, only created a machinery for ascertaining the purchase-money could not have issued, and he thought he should be misthe amount of purchase-money payable. It was admitted that execution for reading the sections if he said that upon verdict there was an attachable debt due from the company. It had been held that when the purchase-money was fixed by an award, there was no attachable debt, and he could see no distinction in principle between that case and where the money was fixed by a verdict. In fact, there was no debt recoverable, except on tender of the conveyance. Again, upon the issue of the writ there was no distinction, and he did not think the purchase-money could be attached. On the judgment for specific performance, the money was not payable unless a good title was shown, and although in one sense it was an equitable debt, still he did not think it could be attached under the order. On December 4, 1878, by the chief clerk's certificate it was proved that a good title had been shown, but even then the payment of the purchase-money was only conditional upon a conveyance being executed. By the order on further consideration, the conveyance was ordered to be executed, and the purchase-money was paid into court, but it was clear on the authorities that after the payment into court, the garnishee order did not affect the fund. He was therefore of opinion that at no time had there been a debt attachable under the order; the debt had never been a perfected debt, and was only payable on the execution of a conveyance. The claims of the garnishees therefore failed.-SOLICITORS, T. 4. Allingham ; Aldridge, Thorn, & Morris; Valpy, Chaplin, & Peck ham.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS.

(Before Mr. Registrar BROUGHAM, acting as Chief Judge.) November 3.-Ex parte Nicholson's Discount Company (Limited). Re Guerrier. A creditor by inadvertence made a proof of debt against the estate of a bankrupt without mentioning a lien which the creditor had upon certain shares, or assessing the value thereof.

Upon an application being made for that purpose, the court allowed the creditor to substitute a fresh proof setting out the shares; the creditor to pay the trustee the costs of the application.

This was an application on behalf of Nicholson's Discount Company (Limited) for an order that the company might be at liberty to rectify or amend the proof made by them, or on their behalf, against the bankrupt's estate on the 15th of September last, for the sum of £5,328 5s. 1d., by the averment therein, as part of the security held by them for their debt, of their lien upon, and crediting the value of, 100 shares of £10 each in the company, belonging to the company, and standing in the bankrupt's name in the books, or that the company might substitute in lieu of the proof already made a fresh proof against the estate, and rank as a creditor for the amount which should be due to them after the value of the shares should have been assessed and deducted in the prescribed manner. It appeared that at the date of the adjudication the bankrupt was indebted to the company in the sum of £5,328 5s. 1d. upon bills discounted, and at the time of the discount of the bills he held 100 shares in the company, upon which, by the terms of their articles of association and certain special resolutions annexed thereto, the company had a lien. In order that the company might be represented at the first meeting, and be then enabled to make certain inquiries and investigations with reference to the transactions between the bankrupt and other persons, the solicitors of the company prepared the form of affidavit for proof of debt, but they, being unaware that such shares were standing in the bankrupt's name, omitted any reference thereto in the proof. The managing director, on the 15th of September, made an affidavit of proof on behalf of the company for the sum of £5,328 5s. ld. upon and in respect of the bills, and such proof was presented at the meeting.

Subsequently, according to the affidavit, the managing director discovered that he had stated in the proof that the company had no security except the bills, and in the hurry of completing such proof, the omission to mention the lien of the company on the shares or to assess the value thereof in the prescribed manner escaped his attention. The shares had always been treated by the company as part of the security held by them for their debt, and the omission to refer to the lien was inadvertent and unintentional on the part of the managing director, and he had no authority whatever from the company to give up or abandon the lien of the company upon the shares, and the company claimed to rectify or amend their proof or to make a fresh proof in substitution for it. J. Linklater, in support of the application.-A proof may be amended when there has been clearly a mistake as appears in the affidavit of Mr. Nicholson. When a creditor makes a deliberate election he will not afterwards be allowed to change his mind, but the court will grant relief in the case of a mere mistake. Unless the proof was made with the deliberate intention of abandoning the security held by the company upon the shares, relief will be granted. He cited: Ex parte Scholfield (L. R. 12 Ch. D. 337); Er parte Bagshawe (28 W. R. 403. L. R. 13 Ch. D. 304); Ex parte Adamson (26 W. R. 890, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 807).

E. C. Willis for the trustee.-The trustee desires to take the directions of the court upon the subject. Where the managing director of a company, who is aware of the existence of a security, proves a debt without due consideration, it is doubtful whether he ought to be allowed to rectify the proof. Mr. Nicholson does not suggest that he was ignorant of the fact that the company had security; he must have known it, and where the omission is due to the creditor's own laches, can the proof be rectified? Unless some degree of strictness be observed, grave errors in proofs of debt may be overlooked, and looseness of practice encouraged.

Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM said the old practice with regard to proofs of debt was this-that when a creditor swore he had no security, and it afterwards turned out that he had security, he was not allowed to amend his proof. The rule was then much more stringent than now, as, under similar circumstances to the present, the creditor would not have been allowed to amend his proof. But the tendency of recent decisions was to relax that rule, and in cases of inadvertence or mistake the court would allow proofs to be amended. Here the proof was made by Mr. Nicholson as managing director of Nicholson's Discount Company. Mr. Nicholson said that after making the proof he discovered he had stated that the company had not received any satisfaction or security whatsoever except bills of exchange, and that, in the hu ry of completing the proof, the omission to mention the lien of the company upon the shares had escaped his attention. That statement was not contradicted by the trustee, and Mr. Nicholson had not been cross-examined. No doubt Mr. Nicholson was to blame in not having carefully read over the proof before swearing to it. He feared, however, that creditors were often too negligent in this respect. He made the affidavit without due reflection, and now he found that the company had security. Under the circumstances, leave would be given to amend the proof or bring in a fresh one; but the company must pay the trustee's costs, as they had been occasioned by the negligence of Mr. Nicholson. If he had been ignorant of the security, costs would not have been imposed; but that was not alleged,

and the order for costs would be made as a caution to creditors. Solicitors for Nicholson's Discount Company, Linklater & Co. Solicitor for the trustee, S. Chapman.

SOCIETIES.

LIVERPOOL INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The following are extracts from the report of the committee of this society:The number of members has been increased from 228 at the end of last year to 233 at this date. The barristers and others, not being members, who subscribe to the library number 33, and 42 articled clerks have been nominated by members to use the library.

Administration of Justice.-Members are aware that in January of this year a committee of judges and others was appointed to consider what changes might the High Court of Justice. The committee, with the hearty and courteous be expedient in the practice and procedure in the common law divisions in co-operation of the Manchester Law Association, endeavoured to secure the addition of Mr. Lowndes, who had served on the Judicature Commission to that committee, considering it highly desirable, in the interests of provincial solicitors, and especially with a view to increasing the utility of the district registries, that a country solicitor should be appointed. In this attempt the amendments to the Rules and Orders of the Judicature Acts, and recommendacommittee failed. They thereupon prepared a statement of suggested tions for increasing the facilities for trial. Attention was also drawn to the poundage and other fees in Admiralty and Chancery as compared with fees in the other divisions of the High Court, which members will recollect was Procedure Committee, and was circulated among a number of members of treated upon in the report of last year. This statement was laid before the Parliament and law societies of the kingdom, with the request that they would memorialize to the same effect. Numerous memorials were in consequence forwarded to the judges. The report of the judges is just published, recognized. That report will no doubt be very closely criticised, and your and the committee are glad to see that their efforts have been partially committee will carefully watch the course of events, and do their utmost to further the policy which this society has for so many years consistently advocated.

Associated Provincial Law Societies.-A question having been raised as to the right of two or more societies, members of the association, taking separate to consider its position as a member of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, action independently of the association, your committee thought it desirable and to what extent its individual action was limited by the fact of such membership. A special sub-committee was therefore appointed to investigate the history and constitution of the association and the privileges of the constituent members. That sub-committee reported that there was nothing inconsistent societies have taken in times gone by, for two or more societies to take any with the rules of the association, or with the course which individual law action they might think desirable, without previously submitting the matter to a meeting of the association. The committee, whilst recognizing the value of the organization, was of the same opinion, and accordingly at a meeting of the members of the associated societies, held in London on the 19th of January last, the president of this society read and handed in the following resolution:-"That this society, having reason to suppose that some misapprehension exists as to the right of two or more societies belonging to the Associated Provincial Law Societies to take action without previously submitting the subject-matter of such action to the associated societies, and finding nothing in the constitution of that association to prevent such action, desires to record its opinion that any two or more law societies, being members of the Asso. ciated Provincial Law Societies, shall be at liberty, whenever that course may seem to them to be desirable, to act as they may think proper in reference to matters of professional interest, independently of and without previous communication with the association."

Civil Assize Arrangements.-The committee have not lost sight of this important matter. A conference, to which the Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and Gateshead Law Societies were invited, and which was attended by delegates from Birmingham, Manchester, and Newcastle-onTyne, was held at this society's rooms, and the statement which had been prepared by this committee, recommending in certain populous centres continuous sittings of the High Court of Justice, was practically adopted. That statement was subsequently submitted to a meeting of the Associated Provincial Law Societies in London, and confirmed by them without material alteration. The statement was printed and circulated among members of this society. A sub-committee was formed to collect information, showing the necessity for the proposed scheme, and to report as to the best mode of working it out in detail. That committee, upon which Liverpool was represented, have completed their labours, and have reported that a stronger case can be made out for continuous sittings in the districts of the Hundreds of Salford and West Derby, with Manchester and Liverpool as centres, than for any other part of the country, and it therefore recommended that the law societies of Manchester and Liverpool draw up a scheme for continuous sittings in those cities. The attention of the Government during the past session of Parliament has been so much occupied with Irish affairs that the opportunity of urging upon them the granting of additional assize facilities did not occur. Copies of the resoluGeneral, and the Solicitor-General; and, on the occasion of the second tions have, however, been transmitted to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorneyreading of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment Bill, Mr. Whitley, M.P., on the suggestion of this society, drew the attention of the

House of Commons to the defective civil assize arrangements for Lancashire. their support. It is hoped that with a well-digested scheme, supported by A large number of members of Parliament promised to give Mr. Whitley the weight of all the country law societies, something may be done during the next year to facilitate the trial of causes in the country in the manner suggested by this society.

Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster.-The report of last year referred to the attempt of the committee to obtain an assistant registrar in the Liverpool District Registry, and a statement is there contained of suggested changes in the staff and working of the office. At that date no success bad attended their efforts. The committee, however, persevered; and at length, in compliance with the request of the committee and in consideration of a written statement explaining the urgency of the matter, the Vice-Chancellor consented to receive a deputation, and has since adopted the recommendatious of this committee in almost every particular. The committee have sanguine hopes that by the valuable assistance of the Vice-Chancellor, which he has so readily and courteously given, the difficulty experienced by the profession in conducting their actions in the Chancery of Lancashire with dispatch will shortly be removed. The committee believe that solicitors will receive with great satisfaction the announcement of the desire of the Vice-Chancellor to reside within the district of the Palatine Court, and to hold fortnightly sittings in Liverpool aud Manchester. The institution of chamber sittings in the district will be a great boon to suitors and the profession. Before the appointment of the present ViceChancellor your committee arranged a conference with the Manchester Incorporated Law Association, at which it was resolved to address the Chancellor of the Duchy and ask him to make it a condition of the appointment that the new Vice-Chancellor should reside within the County Palatine. A letter was accordingly addressed to Mr. Bright, who promised to give the matter special attention. On the appointment of Mr. Fox-Bristowe a deputation waited upon him to congratulate him upon his appointment, and reference was again made to this question, and Mr. Fox-Bristowe then courteously intimated that the views of the committee should be favourably considered. It was feared that owing to the absence of the comptroller in the month of August last, to be followed by the absence of the district registrar, inconvenience would have been found, and delays would have occurred with the progress of actions, and especially in obtaining payment of money out of court, accordingly this committee suggested to the Vice-Chancellor the desirability of appointing Mr. Ryland to transact the business of the registry while the registrar was away. This suggestion was adopted and has proved a great convenience to both solicitors and their Court of Passage.-In the early part of this year the committee hoped that their suggested amendments in the practice and procedure of this court might have been added to the Liverpool City Police Superannuation Bill. It was found, however, impossible to carry out this intention, and the committee did not consider that they would be justified in promoting an independent Bill for the purpose. The town clerk promised to lay before the city council the draft amendments with a view of inducing the city council to take the matter up. The committee have also directed their attention to the practice (which, they are informed, obtains to a considerable extent), in the Court of Passage, of unqualified practitioners issuing writs in the name of the plaintiff, and the assessor has been communicated with on the matter; he caused a notice to be exhibited in a conspicuous position in the registry cautioning unqualified practitioners against this practice, and stating the penalties incurred by their so doing. London Agents' Charges. Your committee have brought their report on this subject before the Associated Provincial Law Societies. It has been distributed among all the constituent societies, and the secretary of the association has obtained the opinion of most of them, which is generally favourable to some alteration of the present system. The matter is now before a special committee of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom, whose views on the subject are not yet received.

clients.

Points of Law and Practice in Conveyancing.-As numerous points of practice and professional etiquette frequently came before the committee for arbitrament, the committee resolved "that the Conveyancing Sub-committee should from time to time appoint three of their number to decide (free of charge) upon the matters which might be submitted to them by solicitors for their opinion." The Conveyancing Sub-committee appointed Mr. Harvey, Mr. Jevons, and Mr. Thornley as the first referees, and several cases have been brought before and been decided by them. The committee hope that solicitors will avail themselves of the facility thus afforded of a speedy and inexpensive mode of settling questions upon which they cannot mutually agree. Matters in dispute can be brought before the referees in the form of a written case, or, if preferred, arrangements will be made so that the contending solicitors may appear before the arbitrators and argue vivâ voce the points in difference. The referees' opinion is generally obtained on the day following that on which the case is submitted. All communications should be addressed to the honorary secretary.

Professional Misconduct.-The committee unfortunately have had to deal, during the past year, with several cases under this head. In one instance the offending solicitor was suspended for twelve months, and in another for three years. The committee decide upon the facts submitted to them whether a prima facie case is established, and, if so, they remit the papers to the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom for the purpose of being laid before counsel. Saffron Walden Benefit Building Society v. Rayner.-This decision, which is of so great importance to the profession, called for the adoption of some uniform system in serving trustees and prior incumbrancers with notices. The committee accordingly recommended to the members of this society that the solicitor to trustees or mortgagees should be employed to obtain his client's personal acceptance of service at a fee of 6s. 8d. for each trustee or other person to whom the notice was to be given, the solicitor giving the notice to provide a copy for each trustee, &c., a copy for the solicitor, and a copy to retain, and this recommendation was printed and circulated among members. The Bankruptcy Bill.-This Bill, which marked a new departure from the principles adopted in the various proposals of the last few years to amend the law and practice of bankruptcy, received the earnest consideration of the com

mittee. The committee on the whole considered the measure a good one; but for reasons which have been already put forth in their special report circulated among the members, they objected to certain clauses, and especially to the provision of the Bill which required every debtor to be adjudicated bankrupt. The efforts of the committee were principally directed to obtain the insertion in the Bill of clauses to provide for the arrangement of a debtor's affairs in certain cases by deeds. The matter was brought forward by the committee at a meeting of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, but, as there was considerable difference of opinion among the societies there assembled, no resolution was then passed on the subject, but it was left to each society to bring the matter before the President of the Board of Trade if they thought fit. Many of the resolutions of this society were, however, adopted, and ultimately the Bill and this society's report (inter alia) were referred to a sub-committee of representatives of the Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Hull, and Newcastle societies to consider and report upon. Mr. Lowndes and Mr. Morton attended that committee as the delegates from this society. A very elaborate report was presented, which was adopted at another meeting of the associated societies held in June last in London. In the meantime the president of this society having addressed a letter to Mr. Chamberlain specially on the question of deeds of arrangement and as to whether it was intended in connection with the Board of Trade under the control of a legal secretary, practically familiar the working of the proposed new system to form a new department of with the law and practice of bankruptcy. He requested that a deputation should be sent to him, which accordingly waited upon him. Mr. Chamberlain until after the first meeting of creditors, in cases where it appeared to the court promised to consider a clause to suspend the adjudication in bankruptcy that it was to the interest of creditors to do so, or when the assets might be imperilled; and also as to the establishment of a special department of the drafted, and, at Mr. Chamberlain's request, submitted to him. Board of Trade to carry out the provisions of the Act. A clause was afterwards the Bill was withdrawn from the House of Commons owing to pressure of business; but as a measure is certain to be introduced next year, the committee hope that it may contain the modifications suggested by them. At the meeting of the Associated Provincial Law Societies above referred to, held in June last, the delegates from this society reported the result of their communication with Mr. Chamberlain, and it was thereupon resolved that the association should adopt the suggestions of the Liverpool Law Society and support their amendments. The honorary secretaries were__ accordingly instructed to communicate with the President of the Board of Trade on the matter. This committee has also been in communication with the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce on the subject of this Bill, and deputations have attended meetings of that body to discuss its provisions.

became law.

Shortly

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.-To the surprise of the profession at large, the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill, 1881, which was introduced by Earl Cairns in the House of Lords (and which was in most respects a repetition of the Bill of 1880), after being referred to and passing under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, The Bill was carefully considered by the committee, and their report is already in the hands of members. A copy of the report of the committee was forwarded to Mr. Whitley, M.P., who was one of the Select Committee appointed by the House of Commons, and the committee are glad to state that the 5th section of the Bill (as to dispensing under certain circumstances with the investigation of titles), to which, in the committee's opinion, there was the strongest objection, has been altogether omitted from the Act. It is needless for the committee here to repeat those objections, as their action, in conjunction with that of other societies, has been successful in obtaining the desired object. The committee cannot but regret that would prefer themselves dealing with important alterations in the law and (in consequence, no doubt, of the general feeling that the Government practice of conveyancing, and that the Bill would not become law) the Bill was not more carefully considered by the profession throughout the country generally. The Act is of a long and exhaustive nature, dealing with a great variety of subjects, and the committee recommend its provisions to the careful personal consideration of each member.

Copyhold Enfranchisement.—This Bill, which contained many excellent proposals for effecting a speedy sweeping away of a cumbrous and troublesome tenure, was carefully considered and reported on by the committee, who have circulated their report on the Bill in the usual manner. Unfortunately, the state of business in the House of Commons prevented its becoming law, but it is to be hoped that it may be re-introduced during the next session of Parliament with greater success.

Customs and Inland Revenue Act.-Section 28 of this Bill provided that the probate stamp should be placed on the affidavit of the person applying for probate instead of on the probate. The committee considered this undesirable, inasmuch as the probate would not thereby show the amount of stamp duty paid; and further, that the affidavit is a document of a character frequently requiring alterations and re-engrossment after being sworn, and the inconvenience in obtaining repayment of the amount of the spoiled stamp would be great, and the amount would only then be refunded in stamps. The president of this society and Mr. Rathbone, M.P., saw Lord Frederick Cavendish, M.P., and Mr. Algernon West, the deputy-chairman of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, on the matter. Some opposition was raised to the proposals of this committee, and a considerable correspondence ensued with the authorities at Somerset House and this committee. As it appeared impossible to get any change made in the section, the committee directed its efforts to obtain facilities for the immediate return of stamp duty on a spoiled affidavit in cash. No definite reply has yet been received, but Mr. Algernon West has written that the Board of Inland Revenue are considering what regulations can be promulgated and what facilities afforded in the sense of the suggestions of this committee.

Solicitors' Remuneration Act.-This Bill, which is perhaps more important to solicitors, and affects their interests more than any Bill which has been

7

introduced during the past ten years, was again brought forward by Earl Cairns. It differs somewhat from the Bill of the session of 1880, the promoters having adopted some of the suggestions of this society made in that year. The committee's report on the Bill is already in the hands of members, and it is not therefore necessary to detail its provisions here, but simply to relate the result of the efforts promised to be made by such report. The committee thought it desirable in the interests of provincial solicitors that the president of a provincial incorporated law society should form one of the body authorized to make general orders regulating the remuneration of solicitors in conveyancing and other non-contentious business. It would exceed the limit which can be allotted to the subject in this report to state in detail the proceedings of the committee to effect this object; suffice it to say that, after encountering formidable difficulties of various and in some respects of unexpected kinds, the committee has succeeded in introducing into the Act an amendment, which is to the effect that the Lord Chancellor for the time being may nominate, from time to time, the president of one of the provincial law societies to serve during the term of his office as one of the body appointed to regulate the scales of costs. The committee congratulate the country solicitors upon having thus secured a direct voice on the council in question, and also upon the recognition by Parliament for the first time of the existence of provincial law societies: this is some proof of their increasing usefulness and influence.

Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment Act.-This very important measure, which was introduced at a late hour, scarcely received the attention from the law societies of the country that it deserved. The committee were strongly opposed to the proposal of the Bill that two judges should be selected from amongst the judges of first instance to sit in the Court of Appeal. The committee also thought that the present was the opportunity to enact that the judges of the Court of Appeal ought to be relieved from the necessity of going circuit. A meeting of this committee and of the committee of the Incorporated Law Association of Manchester was held, at which resolutions to the above effect were passed, and copies were sent to the Lord Chancellor and Earl Cairns, with an intimation that the two societies desired to communicate further with their lordships as to the civil assize arrangements, and to send a deputation. The Lord Chancellor declined to see the deputation the latter subject, inasmuch, as he submitted, it went beyond the scope of any legislation which the Government could undertake at that period of the session with any prospect of success, but his lordship promised to consider the resolutions submitted to him. As members are doubtless aware, the Bill was considerably modified, and that part which was objected to by the second of this society's resolutions was eliminated. In common with a large number of other societies, the committee petitioned Parliament with reference to clause 24, which proposed to throw open the office of district registrar to barristers as well as solicitors. The committee communicated with several members of Parliament, and ultimately the clause was amended in the terms of the petition.

on

Menteath, Mohomed Rafique, Percy Read, Algernon Haskett Smith, and
Gerald Osmond Vaughan, of the Middle Temple: Ernest Agnew, Thomas
Atkinson Argles, Chunder Nath Banerjei, Eugine Emmanuel Coryat, Arthur
Dudley Parr Dudley, George Waylat Ellis, Arthur George Ferard, Francis
Peter Gervais, Dhiray Krishna Ghose, Thomas Henry Boileau Graham,
George Montague Merivale, George Henry Norris, James Henry Renton, and
William Robert Sheldon, of Lincoln's-inn; George Lawtie Fagan, and
Courthray Cracroft Spurrell Fooks, of Gray's-inn, Esqs.
By Order of the Council,
(Signed)

Council Chamber, Lincoln's-inn, November 1.

[ocr errors]

S. H. WALPOLE, Chairman.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.

A meeting of this society was held on Tuesday, the 8th inst., Mr. E. G. Spiers being in the chair. Mr. E. Hepburn was elected a member. The question appointed for discussion was: "Are the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, and the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, satisfactory reforms? Mr. Indermaur opened the debate expressing disapproval of both Acts. A discussion followed in which Messrs. Fox, Richardson, H. F. Brown, Napier, Bartlett, Rhys, Lemon, F. J. Green, Collier, and Kirk took part. The expression of opinion was generally in favour of the first-mentioned Act though somewhat divided as to the latter. A separate vote having been taken in respect of each of the Acts, the question was answered in the affirmative by large majorities in each case. There were upwards of forty members present.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

The 695th ordinary meeting of the Birmingham Law Students' Society was held in the Law Library, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham, on Tuesday, the 8th day of November, 1881, C. H. Edwards, Esq., in the chair. A hearty vote of thanks was passed to Edwin Parry, Esq., registrar of the Birmingham County Court, for his gift of books, to the value of £10 108., to the society's library. On the proposition of Mr. G. Huggins, seconded by Mr. W. S. Rogers, the following resolution was carried: "That this society desires to express its deep sympathy with the family of the late Mr. Joshua Williams, Q.C., and to record its admiration of his high personal qualities and rare learning, and its regret at the death of one who, in the year 1874, honoured this society by accepting the office of president, and who has done more than any other writer of the century for the benefit of the law students of the United Kingdom." The moot point for discussion was as follows: "B., being indebted in the sum of £50 to A., makes his will, whereby he gives A. a legacy of £50, and directs that all his debts shall be paid. At the time of his death A.'s debt is still unsatisfied. Can A. have both debt and legacy ?" The speakers on the affirmative side were Messrs. G. Huggins, Robinson, Lynes, Restall, and Davis: Messrs. W. H. Barber, G. T. Edwards, and Coley argued for the negative. The opening speakers on either side having replied, the chairman summed up, and put the question to the meeting, when the question was decided in the affirmative by a majority of two. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION.
MICHAELMAS EXAMINATION, 1881.

:

GENERAL EXAMINATION of STUDENTS of the INNS OF COURT, held at Lincoln's-inn Hall, on the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st of October, 1881. The Council of Legal Education have awarded to the following students certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination :Arratoon Thomas Apcar, Robert John Bealey, Edgar Brierley, Leonard Syer Bristowe, Johan Frederick Caroe, Henry Cornish, Cecil Henry Cranstoun Machell Cowper, William Feilden Craies, Frederick Henry De Vos, Ernest Crawshaw Elgood, Frederick Branström Fletcher, Charles Gurdon, William Hiddingh, Walter Moore Hodgkinson, Frederick Willoughby Jones, Edalji Jamsetji Khory, Clement Hemery Lindon, Arthur Hubert Pearson, John Suckling Pritchett, Walter John Deacon Radcliffe, Alfred Standring, and Frederick John Francis Wootton-Isaacson, of the Inner Temple; Charles Francis Barrow, David Fowler Burton, Alfred Crooke, Thomas Hedley, Thomas Morgan Joseph, Frederick Reid Scott Kemp, Edward George Macleod, Joseph Sidney Merton, John O'Connor Power, Thomas Crossley Rayner, Edmund Theodore Roberts, Sydney Charles Tolley, and Arthur Thomas Winn, of the Middle Temple; Thomas Barclay, Samuel Theophilus Genn Downing, Francis Henry Lancelct Errington, Charles Edward Grainger, Howard Hodgkin, Kai Ho, Arthur Moss Lawrence, Alan Macpherson, James McMullen Rigg, George John Cayley Smith, and George William Tallents, of Lincoln's-inn, Esqs.

The following students passed a satisfactory examination in Roman law :John Emmott Barlow, Ernest Maris Berger, Richard Newdigate Blandy, Charles Herbert Brown, William Moore Cann, William Nevill Montgomery Geary, Thomas Wentworth Grant, Thomas Tylston Greg, John Leonard Heddon, Thomas Frederick Hobson, William Trench Kirkpatrick, Coldham Crump Knight, Herman William Loehnis, Arthur John Matthews, William Hepworth Mercer, William Stevenson Meyer, Harry Courthope Munroe, John Farrell Lavington Payne, Charles Watson Powell, Richard Bethell Allen Prichard, William Radcliffe, Charles Arthur Reeve, John Sanders Slater, Charles Giesler Thomas, Henry Francis Herbert Thompson, William Henry Trollope, Henry Bernard Isaac Vels, Robert Stuart Aucher Warner, Charles Arnold White, Robert Henry Walter Woodward, William Leonard Wrenford, and John Kirkpatrick Young, of the Inner Temple; Sidney Allen, William Ebenezer, Anthonyson, Jitendra Nath Bandyopadyay, William MacGeough Bond, Herbert Morris Bower, William Clark, Charles Vandeleur Creagh, Charles Shortt Dicken, Leonard Dunning, Thomas Brown Kirkham, Ernest Lloyd, David Norman McNaughton, Henry John Manning, Andrew Agnew Stuart

OBITUARY.

THE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM NATHANIEL MASSEY, M.P. The Right Hon. William Nathaniel Massey, barrister, M. P., died at 71, Chester-square, on the 25th ult. Mr. Massey was born in 1809. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1844, and he practised for several years on the Western Circuit, and at the Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Southampton Sessions. He had a fair criminal practice, and he was for several years recorder of the borough of Portsmouth. He was M.P. for Newport in the Liberal interest from 1852 till 1857, when he was returned for Salford, and he was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department from 1855 till the retirement of Lord Palmerston's first Ministry in 1858. In June, 1859, he became Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, and he held that office till February, 1865, when he was appointed Financial Member of the Council of the Governor-General of India, and was also sworn a member of the Privy Council. He returned from India in 1868, in which year he unsuccessfully contested Liverpool. In November, 1872, he was elected M. P. for Tiverton, and he retained the seat until his death. Mr. Massey was known as the author of a "History of England During the Reign of George III." He belonged to the Whig section of the Liberal party, but he had not recently taken much part in parliamentary debates. He had been for several years chairman of the National Bank. Mr. Massey had been twice married. His son, Mr. Charles Carleton Massey, was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Hilary Term, 1862, and is a member of the Western Circuit. Mr. Massey was buried at Kensal Green Cemetery on the 29th ult.

MR. CHARLES MARGETTS.

Mr. Charles Margetts, solicitor and notary, of Huntingdon, died on the 15th ult., in his eighty-sixth year. Mr. Margetts was born in 1796, and was admitted a solicitor in 1818. He had practised for over sixty years at Huntingdon, having been for a long time in partnership with his son Mr. Charles Berkeley Margetts, who was admitted a solicitor in 1862. He was a perpetual commissioner for Huntingdonshire and a notary public, and he had a very extensive private practice. He was at the time of his death deputyregistrar of the archdeaconry of Huntingdon, and he had previously many other important appointments. He was judge of the old local court for the

« PreviousContinue »