Page images
PDF
EPUB

cellor's committee; and "that a uniform procedure in all courts should be of the higher scale of costs. The statistics furnished to the committee adopted as to judgment summonses, casting the onus of proof of want of effectually disproved that inference, because they showed that, whilst only means on the judgment debtor." Since the report was issued there had been 4,000 writs were issued in the Chancery Division, 70,000 were issued in the a very interesting case recently before the courts, which they had seen other divisions. He thought they were entitled entirely to repudiate the decided in two or three ways. It was an action against a gentleman suggestion. He recollected in the early days of the Judicature Act the for hay or corn provided for his horses. He had made an affidavit that he was Master of the Rolls stating that a great many monetary claims unable to pay, and against that the plaintiff said he lived in a good house and were brought in his court, in fact so many that he should have so forth, and thereupon he was committed to prison. Afterwards he had filed to make a separate list, and therefore the inference was not an affidavit denying the hunting, or that he had means and so forth, and had entirely without foundation. The committee also recommended that the been let out. If the onus of proving his means were cast upon the costs to be allowed to the successful litigant, and payable by his opponent, defendant at starting, he would make an affidavit in so many words, should, in all cases, include such costs as have been reasonably and properly and thereupon he might be relieved from committal. He (the incurred as between solicitor and client on the principle of taxation where a president) had a strong opinion that, unless the defendant were required to third party has to pay them, and that when a third party is joined to an answer affidavits or to be cross-examined, this would not work. Although action under ord. 16, r. 18, and he appears, and is at the trial held to be the that was his (the president's) crotchet, he was quite willing to throw it over-party liable, the judge shall have power to direct the payment by him of the board. As to the mode of trial, the committee concurred "that the ordinary costs incurred by the original defendant in the action. Beyond the immode of trial should be by a judge without a jury." They recommended, mediate matters embraced in the report of the Lord Chancellor's com"Whilst approving of the suggestion that the ordinary mode of trial should mittee, it had been proposed by the committee of the society, he thought with be by a judge without a jury, after issue joined, application should be made to very great reason, that the provisions of ord. 14, r. 1, should be extended to a judge in chambers to settle the issues of law and fact, and for directions as actions of ejectment, the wording being that the provisions of ord. 14, r. 1, to the mode of trial, or other disposal of the action; and that the action should should be extended to actions for the recovery of land, and also to writs be tried or disposed of in the manner so directed: Provided that in the follow-under the Bills of Exchange Act; that rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme ing cases the right of either party to a trial by jury shall be absolute-libel, Court of Appeal, 1880, by which the practice under the Summary Procedure slander, seduction, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, breach of pro- on Bills of Exchange Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 67) is abolished should be mise of marriage, and assault. Either party to be at liberty to appeal against annulled, and the practice under that Act should be re-established. any order made on such application." With reference to shorthand writers' And that the number of days in which judgment may be obtained notes, "Whilst approving of an accurate shorthand note being taken of the should be reduced from twelve to eight days; ord. 16, r. 10, being made proceedings at the trial of actions, this committee is of opinion that it is un- to apply to writs issued under the Summary Procedure on Bills of Exchange desirable to appoint officials for that purpose, but that it is expedient that a Act. These were shortly the heads of the report, and he thought he might body of shorthand writers should be constituted who should possess a recog- again venture to congratulate them that a committee composed of so large a nized status in the courts of justice. The master to allow the cost of the note, number of their body should have been able to produce so admirable a report. but that of the transcript, and copies of such transcript, to be in his discre- He ought, perhaps, to refer to the Long Vacation. He had not read the part tion." Then, as to cause lists, they recommend "that the list of causes of the report which dealt with it, because it was an excrescence on the original to be tried should be divided into special juries, common juries, and causes report. As a younger man he always adored the Long Vacation, and the without & jury, and that separate courts should sit for each class of cases." very arduous nature of the business in which he was engaged at that time As to official referees, the committee is of opinion "that the general scheme rendered it absolutely necessary that he should have such a vacation, but he of appointing official referees as contained in the Judicature Acts is a valuable now approached it with a greater degree of calmness. He would put the one, and that such appointments should be continued, and with such addi- report before the meeting as one single document. Looking at the position of tions, to the number and alterations in the powers and duties of the referees the Rule Committee of the Judges, he thought the meeting could hardly give as may be necessary to entitle that tribunal to the confidence of the public and the report ample or sufficient discussion in each particular part. He had the profession." Also, "that official referees (whose number should be increased stated that he himself was willing to forego any doubts he might have as to as occasion may require) should have the same power as a judge to deal with particular parts of it, and thought he would best discharge his duty to the the whole cause, subject to appeal. The jurisdiction of the masters, as arbitra- society by moving, "That the report be received and adopted, and that tors, to be transferred to such official referees." With respect to motions and copies be sent to the Lord Chancellor and to all the judges.” new trials, the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor's committee was that applica Mr. F. M. RUSSELL seconded the motion. tions for a new trial should be by notice of motion, stating the grounds of application to the court, such application to be disposed of on the motion, without any rule nisi, and that the same should apply by way of appeal from inferior courts, and that after the trial of any cause before a judge and jury, the judge might, upon application, certify that he was dissatisfied with the verdict, in which case a new trial should take place unless the court should otherwise order. The committee accepted the 15th resolution in its entirety. Being of opinion that no new trial should be allowed except by order of the Court of Appeal, the committee could not agree with the 18th. As to appeals, the Lord Chancellor's report recommended that all appeals from a judge without jury should be to the Court of Appeal; and also where a judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff or defendant. All applications for a new trial in jury causes should go to a court in banco. The committee of the society disagreed with the sittings of a court in banco, and they were of opinion "that the sittings of the court in banco should be abolished, and that all matters, now assigned to that court, should be heard before a single judge." With respect to appeals from arbitrators and official referees the committee thought that "there should be a right of appeal from arbitrators and from official referees to a judge under the following conditions:-In references by agreement such appeal should be on a question of law; in compulsory references the appeal should be on questions either of law or fact; the appeal from a judge should be to the Court of Appeal; that appeals to the Court of Appeal on questions of fact should be by leave only." As to the question of costs, on which naturally a great deal of care and attention was bestowed, it was proposed by the Lord Chancellor's report that when the amount recovered in an action for a mere money demand, or for damages only, is less than £200, the plaintiff's costs shall be taxed on a lower scale, to be fixed by rules and orders, and the same scale shall be applied to the defendant's costs where the plaintiff's claim is under £200. Where the subject-matter of the appeal is less than £200, there shall be no appeal from any final judgment of the judge without leave. Neither party shall be entitled to have such actions tried by special jury. But a judge shall have power, either before or after trial, to order that any or all of these provisions shall not be applicable to any action in which a larger amount is indirectly involved, or to which, for good cause shown, he shall consider that they, or any of them, ought not to apply. Also that there shall be a uniform scale and system of costs in contentious business in all the divisions of the High Court. With that the committee disagreed, and they had recommended "that, having regard to the facilities given for obtaining speedy judgment under order 14 in all monetary actions, and to the fact that in those actions in which such application does not succeed, the defendant shows that he has a substantial defence, and compels the plaintiff to proceed with his action, it is undesirable that a lower scale of costs than that which now exists should be adopted." The committee had also pointed out-and he thought they had justly repudiated with some indignation-the statement, or at any rate the inference which had been cast upon the profession, that actions had been unduly brought in the Court of Chancery in order to get the benefit

Mr. TAYLOR, speaking with regard to the question of costs, thought the committee had scarcely sufficiently considered it in relation to the public de mands. To say that they were to have no lower scale of costs in the present state of public feeling seemed to him to be decidedly unwise. There was a great demand for cheaper litigation, and the only effect of such a resolution as that to which the committee had come, whereby there was to be no difference at all in the scale of costs in actions for £30 and in actions for larger sums, would be that there would be an enactment that no costs should be reCovered in actions for a certain amount, say £50 or more, just as the present enactment applying to debts under £20. If the public feeling was attempted to be got rid of in this way he was sure this would be the result. A large amount of public indignation existed with regard to costs in small matters. With regard to judgment summonses the report really implied an alteration in the law. It was not simply an alteration of practice. Under the present law a defendant was not liable to be committed unless it could be shown that he had had the means of payment since the date of the judgment. That was a positive and express prohibition by law. What was wanted, and he thought wisely, was an express enactment that a defendant should be committed to prison unless he showed that he had not had the means of payment since the date of the judgment. The committee proposed to apply the provisions of order 14 to actions for ejectment, but he had a very decided objection indeed to this. The provisions of that order enabled a person in a case of litigated demand to obtain judgment at once on showing that there was no substantial defence. That was confined to a special class of cases, ordinary debts, and so What was the provision in actions of ejectment? That in all actions of ejectment, let the case be what it may, unless the defendant showed that he bad a defence, the master should be the judge-the master should decide and give the plaintiff at once the remedy of re-entry. He confessed, for his part, that many cases in which poor men had succeeded after much litigation in obtaining judgment would be at once put an end to by such a proceeding as this. He believed that in cases of contested title that would often be the result. This was an enactment which would apply to all actions of ejectment in which there was no defence in the judgment of the master. There were actions for ejectment by landlords whose rent was in arrear, or where the covenants of leases granted by them were broken. These were under the recent Act cases in which the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment. What had been the cause that the plaintiff had not obtained this judgment? Public opinion. Tais publicity had prevented many a man who would otherwise have attempted to put it in force from doing so. There was now a provision of the Legislature preventing a man from exercising this power in certain cases. He concluded by moving as an amendment, "That so much of the report of the committee as recommends that the provisions of ord. 14, r. 1, should be extended be not sauctioned by this meeting."

on.

Mr. F. MILLER regretted the observations that had been made on the sub. ject of costs. The subject, although interesting to the profession, was not so interesting to them as the body of the report. They only considered it as a secondary matter, and, in the first instance, desired that nothing should be

left undone for the benefit of the suitor. With regard to the first paragraph of the report, he said that the recommendations with reference to pleadings had not been come to by the unanimous vote of the committee. Further, the council, when they issued their recommendation in November last, came to a different conclusion. They had, therefore, a choice between the determination of the council in November last, or that of the committee laid before them this day. But there might be an alternative course which might meet with the sanction of those present. Pleadings were, as he understood it, for the purpose of ascertaining the issues to be decided between the parties. If the parties were given notice, the use of pleadings would be unnecessary, and their expense might be saved. It appeared to him that in all cases in which application for judgment was made under ord. 14, r. 1, that the parties should ascertain by means of the affidavits used on that application quite sufficient to enable them to go to trial and to decide the question. Pleadings, after all, would have no effect where the master decided the case, and in such case the parties might very well be saved the expense of preparing and filing formal pleadings when they had ascertained by means of the affidavits which are used what the facts in controversy are. He moved that no pleadings should be allowed except by order of the master in cases where application has been made for judgment under order 14, and leave has been given to defend. In the proposed rules it was suggested that the order should be the order of a judge. He did not see why if the master was competent to decide applications for judgment, which he did every day, it was necessary to ask a judge, and only a judge, to decide whether pleadings were necessary or not. That was a point which might as well be left to the master with the other points to decide, subject, of course, to appeal to a judge. If the master thought that pleadings should, in any special cases, be allowed, there would be no greater expense attached to it, because, in the order given for leave to defend, the master could, if he chose, direct that pleadings should be allowed, and thereupon he could proceed in the usual way. This would be a saving of expense in a very great number of actions. A great number were heard under order 14, and in by far the greater number of instances previous applications had been made. But he did not propose to apply it to cases where the parties knew from first to last that there must be a very heavy fight, but in cases where order 14 was suitable, it did seem to him it could be ascertained from the affidavits, and that pleadings were unnecessary. He was quite sure the bulk of the profession did not desire that the costs of proceedings should be increased, but, on the other hand, they did desire that what they did in preparing an action for trial should be properly remunerated. Mr. HAYWARD seconded.

The amendment, having been put to the meeting, was negatived. Mr. MOORE remarked that under ord. 14, r. 1, the plaintiff had a summary remedy where there was a bona fide defence; but in some cases-as, for instance, a dissolution of partnership-the plaintiff had no summary remedy. They knew that in many cases, if the statements in the plaintiff's statement of claim were admitted or proved, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief asked for; but, in those cases where the defendant elected to put in an untruth fal denial of the facts in his defence, he forced the plaintiff to go to trial, and caused great expense thereby. If the facts in the plaintiff's statement were not true, the defendant could have no objection to verify his denial on oath. If, on the other hand, the facts were true, the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the factswhilst by that admission the plaintiff could move, under ord. 14, r. 11, for such relief as he was entitled to. It did not seem to him desirable that in other cases the statement of defence should be on oath. He would move, as an amendment, that it should be added to the resolution of the committee on the subject of pleadings: "It is desirable in most cases, when the defendant by his defence denies facts alleged in the plaintiff's statement of claim, that such denial should be on oath. It is suggested, therefore, that within seven days after delivery of defence the plaintiff be at liberty, by notice in writing, to require that within seven days after such notice the defendant should verify his defence on oath."

The amendment was not seconded.

of the profession, whilst the discussion had been limited to the subsidiary portions of it. He thought that the second suggestion of the committee should be struck out. The proposal was that certain masters should be relegated to hearing summonses only, and it was a very good proposal to that extent, but then it was also proposed to attach certain cases to individual masters. From his experience of several years he had found this invariably to work badly. He contrasted the manner in which the work was divided between the several chief clerks. In Vice-Chancellor Bacon's chambers, for instance, there was nothing to do, whilst others were crammed full, and when a number of cases were relegated to one master, there would be the same difficulty, and instead of the masters being able to assist each other there would be the sama inconvenience which existed in chancery. There could be no advantage in the proposal, for out of 30,000 or 50,000 cases how was it possible that the master should have any knowledge of particular cases? Anyone who had practised in the courts knew well the power that money influenced in dealing with actions, and one of the suggestions was that discovery of interrogatories should be paid for by the parties asking for them. The amendment was a great improvement. It would be a denial of justice to a great many poor litigants if they were made to pay the costs in the first instance. He entirely sympathized with the view that unnecessary applications should be avoided, and he would suggest that in taxation either between party and party, or solicitor and client, the cost of discovery and of interrogatories should not be allowed unless the taxing master or a judge of summary appeal should think such applications necessary and proper. With respect to the trial of cases by judges, that practically meant that the judge was supreme in the decision of the case. The Court of Appeal had again and again decided that the judge having seen the demeanour of the witnesses they could not deal with the matter and upset his decision. The result would be that the decision of a case would be left entirely with the judge trying the case, and he did not think, looking at the way in which they had exercised their discretion lately, there would be a desire to give them this power. In the old chancery days there was something in it. The costs were in the discretion of the judge, but that discretion was administered with regard to defined rules; but now costs were to be disallowed for any earthly object. Everyone knew the complaints that were made after every assizes of the judges forcing the business to get through the lists. If they left it to the judges to try the causes, and they were in a great hurry to get to the next assize town, he would like to know how they would be tried. Things would be even worse than they were now. He thought it a mistake to leave the cases to be tried by the judges alone. He moved that that portion of the report which said that the ordinary mode of trial should be by a judge, without a jury, be not agreed to. Mr. LEVERTON seconded.

Mr. C. FORD (who spoke amidst much interruption) said he had given notice to the secretary of his intention to move the following resolution:-"In actions in the Queen's Bench Division where the amount recovered is under £200, only fees between counsel on any side should be allowed on taxation unless the judge should otherwise order at the trial, and this society is of opinion that the whole system of the remuneration of counsel calls for amendment, especially as regards allowance of counsels' fees made by the taxing masters as authorized by existing Judicature Rules." Since he had given notice he had been subjected to gentle, but he supposed most proper, influence, and would not press his motion.

The PRESIDENT thanked Mr. Ford for saving the meeting from a very ill-timed discussion which was beneath the dignity of the profession.

Mr. KIMBER thought Mr. Taylor's observations should not be allowed to go unanswered. They knew that actions for ejectment were tried even now before magistrates without any preliminary proceedings as well as in the county courts. This being the case he could not understand why order 14 should not be adopted.

Mr. F. K. MUNTON spoke of the difficulty of casting the onus of proof on the debtor in cases of judgment summonses. In reading a paper at Brighton on the subject he had had the honour to propose that the debtor should be called upon to make a sworn summary of his affairs for the last three years. Whilst on the subject he would draw their attention to the difficulty of getting the money after obtaining a judgment summon. During the last five years, whenever he had obtained a judgment under order 14, he found that when the execution was placed in the hands of the sheriff it was a very long time before the money was received. In the ordinary way they had to wait five or six weeks before they could get anything done, and then they had to rule the sheriff.

Mr. E. LE RICHE spoke of the importance of the report to the great body

The amendment was put to the meetin and negatived.

The PRESIDENT then put the original motion. He had ventured to move at starting that the report be received and adopted, and that copies be sent to the Lord Chancellor, and to the judges forming part of the Rule Committee of the Judges. He had used these words because the Lord Chancellor's secretary had written to the council telling them that the Rule Committee were meeting to-day, but it might stand that copies be sent to all the judges. The motion was carried unanimously with applause.

The PRESIDENT then moved, "That the cordial thanks of this meeting be given to the special committee of this society for the able and exhaustive report submitted by them to the meeting on the subject of the recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor's Committee on Legal Procedure. That this meeting cannot separate without acknowledging the incessant labour bestowed by the special committee during the past three months in discharge of the arduous duties imposed on them by the necessary inquiry into the important matters embraced in their report."

Mr. THOS. PAINE (vice-president) seconded the motion.

Mr. FINCH spoke in high terms of the care, labour, and skill which had been exercised in producing the report.

Mr. W. M. WALTERS, as a member of the committee, expressed their deep indebtedness to their chairman, Mr. Crowder, to whom they voted a cordial vote of thanks for his energy and ability.

Mr. CROWDER, in returning thanks, stated that the committee had held twenty meetings, ranging from two and a half to three hours in duration, and in two cases they had extended over five and six hours. The sub-committee had met ten times, and their sittings had averaged five and six hours. A vote of thanks to the President, moved by Mr. MACARTHUR, terminated the proceedings.

MANCHESTER INCORPORATED LAW ASSOCIATION. The annual dinner of this association took place on the evening of Tuesday, February 21, at the Albion Hotel, Piccadilly, Manchester. Mr. Alfred Leaf, the president of the association, occupied the chair; the vicepresidents were Mr. Henry Wrigley (of Oldham), and Mr. C. H. Hinde. There were present the Mayor of Salford (Mr. Alderman Husband), Mr. James Crossley (president of the Cheetham Society, and one of the founders and first president of the Manchester Law Association), Mr. Peter Allen (of the Manchester Guardian), Mr. Alexander Ireland (of the Manchester Examiner and Times), Mr. P. S. Minor (the Heelis Prizeman for 1881), a deputation from the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool, consisting of Mr. Harvey (president), Mr. Collins (vice-president), Mr. Morton (honorary secretary), and Mr. F. M. Hull, and the following members of the associa tion-viz., Messrs. Edwin Almond, James Booth, Edward Boutflower, E. Bythway, T. Chorlton, Thomas Claye, William Cobbett, Richard Cobbett, H. Stanley Cooper, T. Diggles, T. Farrar, H. Galloway, T. J. Gill, W. H. Guest, George Hadfield, William Harper (Bury), H. Harwood, T. R. Haslam, A. T. Holden (Bolton), C. H. Holden (Bolton), T. W. Heelis (Bolton), James Kershaw, F. J. Marlow, J. F. Milne, James Ogden, J. B. Parkinson, J. W. Roberts, G. W. Rigg, Francis Smith, Leonard Tatham,

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

Henry Taylor, James Watkins (Bolton), Frank Watkins (Bolton), P. Watson (Bury), C. S. Wilson, Henry Wood, Percy Woolley, and S. Unwin (hon.secretary). The usual loyal and patriotic toasts were proposed by the chairman, the "Army, Navy, and Volunteers" being responded to by Captain Harper; Mr. Crossley proposed "The Manchester Incorporated Law Association," which was acknowledged by Mr. Wrigley. Mr. Hinde proposed "The Mayor and Corporations of Manchester and Salford," which was responded to by the Mayor of Salford. "The Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool was proposed by Mr. J. F. Milne and acknowledged by the President of the Liverpool Law Society. Mr. William Cobbett proposed "The Press," which was responded to by Mr. P. Allen and Mr. A. Ireland; Mr. C. H. Holden gave "The President and Chairman," and Mr. Tatham proposed, and Mr. Parkinson responded to, the toast of "The Lancashire Witches." In the course of the evening the Heelis Gold Medal, founded in 1873, in memory of the late Mr. Stephen Heelis, as an annual prize for the student from Manchester or Salford who shall pass the best examination at the final examinations of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom was presented by the president to Mr. P. S. Minor, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. R. Minor, and who also obtained the Clement's-inn, Daniel Reardon, and Broderip Prizes, at the final examination held in November, 1881.

BIRMINGHAM LAW SOCIETY.

The annual meeting of this society was held at the Law Library, Wellington-passage, Bennett's-hill, on Wednesday; Mr. J. Marigold presiding. There were also present Messrs. G. J. Johnson, W. Morgan (vice-president), T. Horton (hon. secretary), W. S. Allen, W. Evans, J. B. Clarke, T. Marlow (Walsall), M. A. Fitter, H. Glaisyer, L. W. Lewis (Walsall), T. Martineau, L. P. Rowley, F. Sanders, C. T. Saunders, T. S. Smith, &c. The committee's report for the past year was read.

The CHAIRMAN, in moving the adoption of the report, said that the sub. ject-matter with regard to legal procedure had been before a large committee of London and country men, and would be considered in London on the 22nd instant. Mr. CANNING seconded the motion, and it was carried.

The CHAIRMAN then banded to Mr. H. J. Brown, B.A., the gold medal prize, won at an examination in April last. Mr. Brown served his clerkship with Messrs. Cottrell & Son, of Birmingham.

On the motion of Mr. PAGE, seconded by Mr. THOMAS, a vote of thanks was accorded to the retiring auditors (Messrs. T. Fisher and A. Canning); and Messrs. A. Foster and H. Parish were appointed auditors for the current Votes of thanks were also passed to the president and the hon. secretary, and the proceedings terminated.

year.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee :Members. Your committee report a continued progress in the prosperity of the society, the number of members now being 228 as against 217. The Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881.-Your committee have considered what should be done by the members of the society as to the adoption of this Act, and aided by the opinions expressed at the numerously attended meeting of the profession on the 9th of January, 1882, have decided to make the following recommendations:

That presuming the present vicious system of payment according to the length of documents to be abandoned, and a proper ad valorem scale of fees to be authorized, the provisions of the Act should be adopted in all ordinary cases, subject to the following exceptions and observations :

1. That short forms, similar to those in the fourth schedule, should be used in preference to the statutory forms in the third schedule. The saving in length between-e.g., a statutory form of mortgage, and a mortgage framed on the model given in the fourth schedule, is very trifling-extending only to two points, that the covenant for payment and the proviso for redemption are implied in the statutory mortgage instead of being expressed. On the other hand, the fourth schedule forms have very great advantage over the statutory forms in their adaptability to particular cages, and especially in what we hereafter point out as desirable qualifications in some of the implied covenants and provisions of the Act. In a mortgage the difference would really be only in the insertion of the covenant to pay, for the proviso for redemption is superfluons, if the habendum be "by way of mortgage to secure, &c."

2. As to conveyances.-Your committee think that in ordinary cases(a) General words may be omitted on reliance on section 6 in all cases where it is unnecessary to have a re-grant of easement which may have been extinguished by unity of possession.

(b) The all-estate clause is rendered unnecessary by section 6. (e) The covenants for title may, your committee think, be omitted in reliance on section 7, but until the Act be amended, or the ambiguous clause, "notwithstanding anything by the person who so conveys, or anyone through whom he derives title, otherwise than by purchase for value," be judicially in. terpreted not to extend to the acts of every person in the chain of title who did not acquire the property conveyed as a purchaser for value, notwithstanding there may have been an intermediate purchase for value, it will be advisable to take advantage of sub-section 7, and limit the covenant to the acts and defaults of the vendor, if he be a purchaser for value, or those through whom he derives title up to and inclusive of the last purchaser for value. Mr. W. Barber proposes to make this one of your common form conditions of sale. (d) Covenant for production of deeds.-This may be dispensed with in ordinary cases by an acknowledgment and undertaking under section 9. 3. As to mortgages.-Your committee think that the covenants and powers of sale may be omitted in reliance on the 7th and 19th sections of the It is considered that the operation of the 18th section, enabling either mortgagor or mortgagee in possession to grant leases, should, as a

Act.

general rule, be excluded, at least so far as the mortgagor is concerned. The question whether the operation of the 17th section should be provided against is one of difficulty. Your committee would be well content that the right to consolidate should be abolished altogether, excepting in those cases where the mortgagor expressly charges the first security with the second mortgage debt; but so long as consolidation is allowed by law in other cases a solicitor will be expected to see that a mortgagee is not deprived of any right which the law gives him.

Legal Remuneration. -Your committee, through the president, have had Incorporated Law Society, and proposed to be made in pursuance of the submitted for their consideration the dra't of a general order, framed by the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881. Under the terms of this order an ad valorem scale of commissions on sales, purchases, leases, mortgages, settlements, and other matters of conveyancing, is contemplated with a provision as to general business which practically gives effect to what your committee consider to be the true principle upon which remuneration for legal business should be based. This principle is set forth in the report of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, for the year 1881, as follows:

"That the solicitor should be remunerated according to the skill, knowledge, and exertion which he employs in the business, and according to its importance and his consequent responsibility and not according to the time employed, the length of documents prepared, or the number of letters or conferences."

This draft order has been submitted to the tribunal created by the Solicitors' Remuneration Act for prescribing the terms of the order.

Conditions of Sale.-Your committee have submitted your common form conditions of sale to Mr. William Barber for revision, with reference to the provisions of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881. The draft of the revision has been received from Mr. Barber, and is now under the consideration of your committee. Mr. Barber advises that it is not necessary or wise to make, at present, any material alteration in the common form conditions.

Legal Procedure Committee.-Your committee devoted much attention to the report issued by the Lord Chancellor's committee, ou changes in the procedure of the Queen's Bench Division, and nominated three of their number to serve as members of the committee of the Incorporated Law Society, appointed in November last, to consider the whole subject. This has been done. and an exhaustive report has been laid before the council, and is to be considered at a special general meeting, at the society's hall, in London, on the 22nd instant.

The report states the opinion of the committee to be-that pleadings, as prescribed by the Judicature Acts and Rules, should be continued so far as they are essential to define the real points at issue in an action; that suitors should not be deprived of the control they now possess over the mode of conducting the successive steps in their actions; that all possible facilities should be given for; diminishing the costs of litigation, ascertaining the exact issue and evidence in every case before trial; reviving the practice under the Bills of Exchange Act; encouraging the trial of actions by a judge without a jury; diminishing the frequency of appeals and new trials, and generally for rendering the administration of justice more speedy and effective.

In these conclusions your committee concur, and trust they will receive the support of the profession, and be incorporated in any rules that may be issued on these important subjects.

Law Classes for Articled Clerks.-Your committee has long felt that provision should be made for the more systematic education of articled clerks in Birmingham, and the Council of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom being also desirous of facilitating the establishment of classes and lectures in the provinces, and having offered a grant in aid of the necessary expenses, your committee have submitted a proposal for the establishment of such classes to the members of the society, asking them to contribute an annual subscription of two guineas per head for each articled clerk; such proposal has met with an amount of support justifying your committee in taking steps at once for the appointment of the lecturer and the opening of the classes.

Considering how difficult it is for members of our profession in active practice to devote sufficient time to the oversight of the studies of the pupils committed to their charge, and how important it is that at the very outset of the student's career he should have the benefit of viva voce teaching and personal direction and supervision in his course of studies, your committee confidently hope that the project will meet with the approval and support of all the members of the society.

Payment of Moneys into Court.-Your committee have received from Mr. Barbam, the agent at the Birmingham Branch of the Bank of England, an intimation that, since the establishment of the branch of the Bank of England at the new law courts, he is able to advise and give receipts for moneys for the account of the Paymaster-General (Chancery Division). if accompanied by the proper direction to the bank to receive the amount. The charge on payments so made is sixpence per cent.

Counsel in North Carolina, says the Albany Law Journal, seem to have a free-and-easy way of treating juries. In State v. Noland (85 N. C. 576), counsel, in the course of argument, approached the jury box and stepped upon the foot of the juror James, saying to him, "I beg your pardon, I only wanted to wake you up," the juror, as the case states, not only being awake, but demeaning himself in a manner altogether proper. It being more usual to address arguments to the other extremity of the body, the appellate court granted a new trial,

[blocks in formation]

The council have given class certificates to the candidates in the second and third classes.

The number of candidates who attended the examination was 76.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. Tuesday, February 14.-Mr. Kirk in the chair.-Mr. G. Mallam was "Is the policy elected a member. The subject appointed for discussion was, of the Government, as foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, worthy of support ?" The debate was opened by Mr. Lloyd Jones on the negative side, and in the discussion which followed he was supported by Messrs. Strickland, Graham, C. E. Barry, Vanderpump, and J. A. Neale. Messrs. J. P. Hunt, Napier, P. T. Rhys, Bartlett, and Davies spoke in favour of the affirmative side of the question. On a division being taken at the conclusion of the debate the question was negatived by a majority of eight votes. There were twenty-eight members present.

Frederic William Hardman, who served his clerkship with Mr. Christopher. Moorhouse and with Mr. John Graves, of Salford.

[blocks in formation]

Dartmouth.

James Clarkson, who served his clerkship with Mr. Thomas England, of the firm of Messrs. Foster, England, & Foster, of Halifax.

Frank Augustus Graham, who served his clerkship with Mr. Joseph Gibbs, of Newport, Monmouth.

Edward Hunt, who served his clerkship with Mr. Henry Darvill, of Windsor.

Ernest Edward Leech, who served his clerkship with Mr. Woolnough Gross, of Bury St. Edmunds; and with Messrs. Abbott & Co. and Messrs. Morley & Shirref, of London.

Frank Sykes, who served his clerkship with Mr. John Jessop Milnes, of Huddersfield.

William Frederick Taylor, who served his clerkship with Mr. Joseph Barclay, of Macclesfield; and with Messrs. Lewis & Sons, of London.

Roderick Williams, who served his clerkship with Mr. Joseph Richardson, of the firm of Messrs. Laws, Bird, Newton, & Richardson, of Liverpool. Alfred Ernest Withy, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Prior, Bigg, Church, & Adams, of London.

THIRD CLASS.

[In Alphabetical order.] John Arthur Bland, who served his clerkship with Mr. T. L. Farrar, of the firm of Messrs. Farrar & Hall, of Manchester. Daniel Percival Boote, B.A., who served his clerkship with Mr. William Thomas Englefield, of the firm of Messrs. Pritchard, Englefield, & Co., of London.

Theodore Christophers, who served his clerkship with Mr. Wm. James Lloyd, of the firm of Messrs. W. F. & H. G. Lloyd, of Newport, Monmouth. Henry Garland, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Nelson, Barr, & Nelson, of Leeds and London.

Henry Greenway, who served his clerkship with Mr. John Greenway, of Plymouth; and with Messrs. Pattison, Wigg, & Gurney, of London. Malcolm McGregor Hadow, who served his clerkship with Mr. Frederick Searle Parker, of the firm of Messrs. Parker & Co., of London. Ernest Howard, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Farlow & Jackson, of London.

Alfred Wilkinson Kindler, who served his clerkship with Mr. Charles John Archer, of Stockton-on-Tees.

Arnold Edward Munns, who served his clerkship with Mr. John Spencer Longden, of the firm of Messrs. Munns & Longden, of London.

Arthur Oldham, who served his clerkship with Messrs. New, Prance, & Garrard, of Evesham; and Messrs. Crowder, Ainstie, & Vizard, of London. Arthur Hope Rydon, who served his clerkship with Mr. Charles Robbins, of the firm of Messrs. Bolton, Robbins, & Busk, of London. James Edward Spickett, who served his clerkship with Mr. Edward Colnett Spickett, of Pontypridd.

Baynes Wright Smurthwaite, who served his clerkship with Mr. Henry Snowden, of Leeds; and with Messrs. Lambert, Petch, & Shakespeare, of

London.

Walter John Tanner, B. A., who served his clerkship with Messrs. Walters, Deverell, & Walters, of London.

Charles Pearson Winter, who served his clerkship with Mr. William Bristow, of Greenwich and London.

Campbell Mountagne Edward Wynne, who served his clerkship with Mr. Llewelyn Malcolm Wynn, of London.

The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly given class certificates and awarded the following prizes of books :

To Mr. Meek, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clement's-inn, value ten guineas; and the Daniel Reardon Prize, value about twenty-five guineas. To Mr. Gordon, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clifford's-inn, value five guineas.

To Mr. Barrows, the prize of the Honourable Society of New Inn, value five guineas.

To Mr. McMaster and Mr. Hardman, prizes of the Incorporated Law Society, value five guineas each,

Tuesday, February 21.-Mr. C. E. Barry in the chair.-Mr. F. Lamb was elected a member. A discussion took place upon the following legal point:"Where one party to a contract engages to perform certain services with the means provided by the other party, is there an implied warranty that such means are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they have been Cockrell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 184). Mr. E. E. Davies opened the debate in the provided?" (Robertson v. Amazon Tug Company, L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 598; Francis affirmative, and was supported on the same side by Mr. Pope. The contrary view was upheld by Messrs. Napier, Thorpe, and Trotter. The opener replied at the conclusion of the debate, and on a division being taken upon the question the same was decided in the affirmative by a majority of one vote. The debate for next Tuesday, the 28th inst., will be upon the question, "Ought capital punishment to be abolished ?"

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

At a meeting held at Clement's-inn Hall, on Wednesday, February 15, Mr. C. Kains-Jackson in the chair, Mr. Ashton Cross opened the following question in the negative:-"That the duration of Parliament should be limited to four years," and was supported by Messrs. Kelke, Tillotson, Spence, Whitehouse, Rosher, Robinson, Newman, Hutton, and others. The question in the affirmative was supported by Messrs. Rundle Levey, ShirleyShirley, and Kains-Jackson. Mr. Rundle Levey replied, and the motion, on being put to the meeting, was declared lost.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

A meeting of this society was held in the Law Library on Tuesday, February 14, S. Royle Shore, Esq., in the chair. There were twenty members present and one visitor. After the special business of the society bad been disposed of, Moot Point No. 658 was debated, the subject being :"Should the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal that, on the sale of goods by a manufacturer of such goods, who is not otherwise a dealer in them, there is (in the absence of any trade usage to the contrary) an implied contract that the goods shall be those of the manufacturer's own make, be sustained on appeal to the House of Lords?" The case referred to is that of Johnson v. Raylton, Dixon, & Co., decided last year (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 438). The speakers were: affirmative, Messrs. Streetley, Lawden, Thompson, and Davis; negative, Messrs. Barrows, Coley, E. C. Rogers, Cochrane, and Robinson. The chairman having summed up, the question was put to the meeting, when it was carried in the affirmative by a majority of one. A vote of thanks to Mr. Shore for presiding concluded the meeting.

MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY,

The eighth meeting of the session of this society was held on Tuesday evening at the Law Library, Cross-street, at half-past six o'clock, when the chair was taken by Edwin Jones, Esq., barrister-at-law. The question

for discussion was as follows:-"A. holds Blackacre under a lease for a term

of 999 years, created in 1876, at a yearly rent of £50. A. in consideration of £800 in 1880 demises Blackacre to B. for 993 years at a peppercorn rent. Can B. under and by virtue of 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 65, enlarge his term into a fee simple? If so, is the land still liable to the rents and covenants The affirmative was opened by reserved and created by the original lease?" Mr. C. R. Hardman, and he was supported by Messrs. Hilditch, Payne, and R. B. Wilson. The negative was argued by Messrs. Morton, Linnell, Hardman, Welch, Birch, Rayner, Law, and two hon. members. The chairman then summed up the arguments and gave his own opinion on the question, and upon taking the voting it was found that the first question was decided in the negative by a majority of twenty-five. Members present, 38.

OBITUARY.

MR. HENRY SAMUEL CHAPMAN.

Mr. Henry Samuel Chapman, formerly a judge of the Supreme Court of the colony of New Zealand, died at Dunedin, New Zealand, a few weeks ago, in his seventy-ninth year. Mr. Chapman was born in 1811. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1840, and he was a judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand from 1843 till 1852, when he was appointed colonial secretary of Tasmania. He held that office for about two years, when he migrated to Victoria, and commenced practice at the bar at Melbourne.

In 1855 he became a member of the Legislative Council, and in 1857 he was for a few weeks Attorney-General of Victoria. A year or two later he took office as Prime Minister and Attorney-General, and his Cabinet remained in office for about a year. He was for some time lecturer in law at the University of Melbourne, and in 1863 he acted as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. He afterwards returned to Melbourne, where he spent the last few years of his life.

THE HON. DOUGLAS EDWARD HOLROYD.

The Hon. Douglas Edward Holroyd, barrister, died at Brighton on the 9th inst., after a long illness. Mr. Holroyd was the second son of the late Earl of Sheffield, and was born in 1834. He was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated second class in law and modern history in 1857. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1863, and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit, and at the Sussex and Brighton Sessions. Mr. Holroyd, who had been for a long time in failing health, was heir presumptive to the earldom of Sheffield. He was unmarried.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. JOHN HERBERT SLATER, solicitor (of the firm of Kearsley, Slater, & Watis), of 26, Brazennose-street, Manchester, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. Slater was admitted at Michaelmas, 1875.

Mr. W. R. A. KIME, solicitor, of 49, Bedford-row, London, W.C., bas been appointed a Commissioner of the Supreme Courts of Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, and the Cape of Good Hope, for taking Affidavits and Acknowledgments, and examining Witnesses in all suits and matters pending in the said courts. Mr. Kime was admitted at Easter, 1875.

Mr. WALTER HENRY MACNAMARA, barrister, has been appointed Secretary to the Railway Commissioners, in succession to Mr. James Balfour Browne, resigned. Mr. Macnamara is the son of the late Mr. Henry John Macnamara, who was successively judge of the Marylebone County Court, and one of the Railway Commissioners. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1874, and he practises on the Oxford Circuit, and at the Staffordshire, Wolverhampton, Lichfield, and Walsall Sessions. Mr. Macnamara was formerly on the staff of the WEEKLY REPORTER.

Mr. ARTHUR GEORGE MACPHERSON, barrister, has been appointed Secretary to the Judicial and Public Department of the India Office, in succession to Mr. William Macpherson, resigned. Mr. A. G. Macpherson was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1852.

Mr. EDWIN WOOD, solicitor (of the firm of Blackford, Riches, Kilsby, & Wood), of 21, College-hill, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. JOHN ROBERTS, solicitor, of Narberth, Tenby, and Milford, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Pembrokeshire for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women.

Mr. JOHN JOSEPH FAULKNER, solicitor, LL.D., of Northampton, has been appointed Registrar of the Northampton County Court (Circuit No. 36), and District Registrar under the Judicature Acts, in succession to his partner, the late Mr. William Dennis. Mr. Faulkner is a LL.D. of the University of London. He was admitted a solicitor in 1870.

Mr. RICHARD ARTHUR WILSON, solicitor, of Salisbury and Wilton, has been appointed Assistant Clerk to the Ambresbury Board of Guardians. Mr. Wilson is also deputy registrar of the Salisbury County Court, and deputy coroner for the Salisbury Division of Wiltshire. He is an M. A. of Exeter College, Oxford, and he was admitted a solicitor in 1869. He is in partnership with his father, Mr. Richard Monkhouse Wilson, and his brother, Mr. George Monkhouse Wilson.

Mr. JAMES WALTER HARLAND, of Leeds and Colton, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

at

Mr. COURTENAY PEREGRINE ILBERT, who has been appointed Legal Member of the Council of the Viceroy of India, was educated Marlborough College, and was successively scholar and fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in classics in 1864. He obtained the Hertford Scholarship in 1861, the Ireland Scholarship in 1862, the Craven Scholarship in 1864, and the Eldon Law Scholarship in 1867. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1869, and he has practised in the Chancery Division. He is counsel to the Education Depart. ment, and he has also been employed in the department of the Parliamentary

Draftsman.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS.

WILLIAM STOLLARD and EDWARD MORGAN WHITTING, Solicitors, 29, South Melton-street, Oxford-street, London (Stollard & Whitting). Dec. 31, 1881. The business will be carried on by the said William Stollard on his separate account. [Gazette, Feb. 17, 1882.] HERBERT SAUNDERS and FRANCIS JOHN BAKER, solicitors, 5, Mitre-court, Temple (Saunders & Baker). Feb. 16. [Gazette, Feb. 21, 1822.]

COMPANIES.

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

ALYN BANK COAL AND CANNEL COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C dated Feb 8, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Hamlin and Grammer, Staple inn, agents for Cartwright, Chester, solicitor for the petitioners COUNTESTHORPE BRICK AND TILE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Kay, J, has fixed Feb 27, at 11 at the chambers of Chitty, J, for the appointment of an official liquidator ENGLISH AND FRENCH BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Feb 14, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Mar 3. Davis and Co, Coleman st, solici tor for the petitioner

GREAT SOUTHERN MYSORE GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Feb 14, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 25. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

HAVEN GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the Court of Appeal, dated Feb 8, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioners

LONDON AND PROVINCIAL TRADERS' WHOLESALE STORES, LIMITED.-Kay, J, h as fixed Tuesday, Feb 28, at 12, at chambers of Chitty, J, for thr appointment of an official liquidator

RAUNDS IRON AND LIMESTONE QUARRIES, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J, dated Jan 25, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up be continued. Tilleard and Co, Old Jewry, agents for Park and Mansfield, Barrow-in-Furness, soli citors for the petitioners

SOCIETY OF AFRICAN TRADERS, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before Mar 13, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Joseph Dobson Good, 16, Gresham st. Tuesday, Mar 21, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

UPLEES BRICKFIELDS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Kay, J, has fixed Monday, Feb 27, at 12, at chambers of Chitty, J, for the appointment of an official liquidator [Gazette, Feb. 17.] ANGLO-AMERICAN CATTLE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Kay, J, has fixed Monday, Feb 27, at 11, at chambers of Chitty, J, for the appointment of an official liquidator BARRY'S CONDENSED SOUPS AND FOOD COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J, dated Feb 11, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Rogers and Chave, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

DIAMOND MINING CORPORATION OF LONDON AND SOUTH AFRICA, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Feb 20, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Friday, Mar 3. Ellis, Bedford row, solicitor for the petitioner

FINE ARTS ALLIANCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has fixed Wednesday, Mar 1, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator GENERAL FINANCIAL BANK, LIMITED.-By an order made by Bacon, V.C., dated Feb 11, it was ordered that the bank be wound up. Plunkett and Leader, St Paul's churchyd, solicitors for the petitioners

GRAND DUCHESS SILVER, LEAD, AND BARYTES MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Feb 10, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Jones and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Hughes and Sons, Aberystwith, solicitors for the petitioner

GRISWOLD AND HAINWORTH, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J, dated Feb 11, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up be continued. Ashurst and Co, Old Jewry, solicitors for the petitioners

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

[Gazette, Feb. 21.]

[blocks in formation]

And whereas it has been

Monday, the 20th day of February, 1882. Whereas by the order dated the 10th day of January, 1882, making provision for the hearing and determining during the absence on circuit of the Honourable Sir Joseph William Chitty, one of the justices of the High Court of Justice, the causes and matters then pending before the said judge, it was ordered that all such causes and matters should be for all purposes transferred until further order to the Honourable Sir Edward Ebenezer Kay, one of the justices of the High Court. represented to me that in consequence of the said Mr. Justice Chitty having returned from circuit and being about to resume his sittings in his own court, it is expedient that the re-transfer hereinafter directed should be made. I, the Right Honourable Roundell Baron Selborne, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do therefore order that the causes and matters by the said order dated the 10th day of January, 1882, transferred fron the said Mr. Justice Chitty to the said Mr. Justice Kay other than the causes set forth in the schedule to the order dated the 7th February, 1882, and thereby transferred from the said Mr. Justice Kay to the ViceChancellor Sir James Bacon, be re-transferred from the said Mr. Justice Kay to the said Mr. Justice Chitty, 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. SELBORNE, C.

« PreviousContinue »