Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Silversides, Frederick, Leamington Priors, Warwick, American Meat Salesman. May
12 at 11 at 19, High st, Warwick. Boddington, Warwick
Simmons, William, Birmingham, Provision Dealer. May 9 at 3 at office of Jaques,
Temple row, Birmingham

Smith, Charles Arthur, Croydon, Stationer. May 18 at 3 at Masons' Hall Tavern,
Masons' avenue, Basinghall st. Kilvington and Stock, Walbrook

Stead, Saul, Leeds, Grocer. May 11 at 11 at the Law Institute, Albion st, Leeds. Cross, Bradford

Stockdale, William, Lancaster, Innkeeper. May 11 at 12 at Queen's Hotel, Penny st.
Fryer, Preston

Styles, Augustine, Leicestor, Brewer. May 10 at 3 at Bell Hotel, Leicester. Stone and
Co, Leicester
Swift, Samuel, Southwell, Nottingham, Butcher. May 12 at 3 at office of Kirkland,
Southwell

Taylor, Thomas, Saffron Walden, Essex, Ironmonger. May 15 at 11 at the Inns of
Court Hotel, Holborn. Ackland, Saffron Walden
Thompson, Henry Charles, Mincing lane, Colonial Broker. May 19 at 2 at offices of
Fuller and Wise, Gresham st. Harwood and Stephenson, Lombard st

Wallace, William Henry, Huddersfield, Grocer. May 10 at 12 at offices of Sykes,
Market st, Huddersfield

Ward, Joseph, Blackley, near Manchester, General Dealer. May 18 at 2 at the Mitre Hotel, Cathedral yard, Manchester. Leigh, Manchester

Werrett, Nathaniel, Walworth rd, Hat Manufacturer. May 11 at 11 at offices of Chalk, Finsbury circus

White, George, Beeston, Nottingham, Boot Dealer. May 12 at 3 at offices of Stroud, Low pavement, Nottingham

White, Robert, and Thomas Joseph Nye, New Brompton, Kent, Builders. May 15 at 2 at 126, High st, Chatham. Norman, Chatham

Wigg, Harris, East Grinstead, Sussex, Tea Dealer. May 15 at 3 at offices of Cripps, Tunbridge Wells

Wilkinson, John William, Folkestone, Kent, Tobacconist. May 10 at 2 at the Rose Hotel, Folkestone. Ward, Folkestone

Williams, Charles, Rushmere, near Ipswich, Suffolk, Farmer. May 22 at 2 at offices of Westhorp, Museum st, Ipswich

Williams, Thomas, Dowlais, Glamorgan, Grocer. May 9 at 12 at offices of Lewis, Glebe land st, Merthyr Tydfil

Wilson, John Bartholomew, Bethnal Green rd, Boot Manufacturer. May 8 at 2 at offices of Tripp, Catherine st, Strand

Woods, Albert, Warrington, Lancaster, Provision Merchant. May 16 at 3 at offices of Davies and Co, Market pl, Warrington

Wortman, Mark Gabriel, and Morris Michaelson, Strand, Tailors. May 11 at 3 at offices of Willis, St Martin's ct, Leicester sq

Wrathall, John, Barrow-in-Furness, Boot Manufacturer. May 12 at 2 at offices of Hayes and Co, Britannia bldgs, Oxford pl, Leeds. Garnett, Barrow-in-Furness Wright, William George, Sheffield, Grocer. May 11 at 2 at the Law Society, Hoole's chmbrs, Bank st, Sheffield. Hickmott

Hancox, Thomas, Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Warwick, Licensed Victualler. May 13 at 11 at offices of Hughes and Masser, Little Park st, Coventry Hanger, Alfred Feary, Oxford, Boot Dealer. May 17 at 12 at New Inn, Oxford. Galpin, Oxford Harding, Needham, and William Isaac Jackson, Birmingham, General Factors. May 16 at 2.30 at offices of Dale and Vachell, Bennett's hill, Birmingham Hardy, George William, Birmingham, Refreshment House Keeper. May 17 at 1.30 at offices of Bass and Co, limd, Newhall st, Birmingham. Jennings and Co, Burton-on

Hart, George, Wakefield, York, Clerk of Works. May 15 at 3 at offices of Harrison and Beaumont, Chancery lane, Wakefield

Hewer, John, Bridford, Devon, Farmer. May 12 at 11 at offices of Friend, Post Office chmbrs, Exeter

Hewitt, Louis William, Stretton-on-Dunsmore, Warwick, of no occupation. May 15 at 3 at offices of Owston and Dickinson, Friar lane, Leicester

Higham, John Frederick, Hulme, Manchester, Musical Instrument Dealer. May 18 at 12 at offices of Pritchard and Co, Painters' Hall, Little Trinity lane, London. Hinde and Co, Manchester

Hodge, John Samuel, South Molton, Devon, Tailor, May 12 at 12 at offices of Riccard, South Molton

Hopkins, John, Walbrook, Solicitor. May 10 at 3 at Masons' Tavern, Masons' avenue, Basinghall st. McLachlan, Croydon

Howson, Richard Gregory, Clapham cum Newby, York, Joiner. May 16 at 1 at Flying Horse Shoe Hotel, nr Clapham cum Newby. Thompson

Hurst, Edwin Henry, New London st, Seed Merchant. May 12 at 2 at offices of Lousada and Emanuel, Austinfriars

Ireton, Arthur John, and Joseph Kilsby Ward, Piazza, Covent Garden, Potato Salesmen. May 25 at 12 at Ashley's Covent Garden Hotel, Henrietta st, Covent Garden, Button and Co, Henrietta st, Covent Garden

James, Thomas, Much Wenlock, Salop, Grocer. May 16 at 12.30 at Raven Hotel, Much
Wenlock. Phillips and Co, Shifnal

Jeffery, Henry, Cheltenham, Hotel Keeper. May 12 at 11 at Belle Vue Hotel, Chelten-
ham. Winterbotham and Co, Cheltenham
Jennings, Samuel, Bradford, Innkeeper. May 12 at 11 at offices of Greaves and Taylor,
Jewkes, James, Dudley, Worcester, Straw Dealer. May 12 at 12 at offices of Tinsley,
Cheapside, Bradford
Johnstone, Hannah, Bishop Auckland, Durham, Grocer. May 20 at 11 at offices of
Priory st, Dudley
Stillman, North Bondgate, Bishop Auckland

Jones, George, Shrewsbury, Baker. May 17 at 11 at St John's Hill, Shrewsbury.
Nutsey

Jones, John, Sedgley, Blacksmith. May 15 at 11 at office of Whitehouse, Dudley rd, Tipton

Knightsbridge, James, Provost st, Hoxton, Draper, May 9 at 3 at offices of Staniland,
Queen st, Cheapside

Koppel, Bernard, Commercial rd East, Dealer in Boots. May 11 at 2 at Masons' Hall
Tavern, Masons' avenue, Basinghall st,. Waring, Gresham bldgs, Guildhall
Langley, Thomas, Wellington, Salop, out of business. May 9 at 11 at office of Car-
rane, Wellington

Lee, John Edward, Manchester, Iron Worker. May 18 at 3 at office of Rylance, Essex st, Manchester

Lewis, Alfred Elias, North Malvern, Worcester, Builder. May 12 at 2.30 at Hop
Market Hotel, Worcester. Bowers, Great Malvern

Lucas, John George, Worthing, Sussex, Draper. May 16 at 3 Serjeant's inn, Fleet st.
Nye, Brighton
Lupinsky, Abraham, Shoreditch, Tailor. May 18 at 3 at John st, Bedford row. Browne

Makin, James Brierley, Rotherham, York, Boot and Shoe Dealer. May 12 at 3 at offices of Clegg, Victoria chmbrs, Figtree lane, Sheffield

Cannings, John, Birmingham, Leather Seller. May 11 at 3 at offices of East, Temple st, Birmingham

Carter, Henry Denter, Leamington, Tailor. May 12 at 2.30 at offices of Parr and Hayes, Colmore row, Birmingham

Christmas, Fred, Marchi, Cambridge, Carpenter. May 11 at 11 at offices of Sidney and Ollard, March

Churchill, Henry George, Kenilworth, of no occupation. May 15 at 11 at King's Head Hotel, Coventry. Tomlinson, Newport

Cole, Abraham, Bristol, out of business. May 10 at 12 at offices of Essery, Nicholas st, Bristol

Coney, Thomas Worts, Huddersfield. Omnibus Proprietor. May 17 at 3 at Law Society, Imperial arcade, New st, Huddersfield. Laycock and Co, Huddersfield

Coombe, George, Bristol, Glass and China Dealer. May 11 at 2 at offices of Sibly and Dickinson, Exchange West, Bristol

Cooper, Thomas, Maidstone, Clothier. May 13 at 11 at Cannon st, Hotel, Cannon st. Stenning, Maidstone

Dallaway, Joseph, Devizes, out of business. May 13 at 11 at offices of Smith, High st, Devizes

Draper, William, Warwick, Boot and Shoe Dealer. May 15 at 11 at offices of Sanderson, Church st, Warwick

Dunn, Walter, Oxford st, General Store Proprietor. May 24 at 2 at Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Van Sandau and Co, King st, Chepside

Evans, Alfred Palmer, Batheaston, Somerset, Clerk in Holy Orders. May 12 at 11 at 9, Old Bond st, Bath. How

Evans, Morgan, Llanychairn, Cardigan, Grocer. May 11 at 11 at offices of Griffith Jones and Co, Great Darkgate st, Aberystwith

Garner, John, Spurstow, Chester, Grocer. May 11 at 12.30 at Royal Hotel, Crewe. Walker and Co, Chester

Gibson, Moses Westmoreland, Lincoln, Joiner. May 10 at 11 at offices of Page, Flaxen gate, Lincoln

Gratton, John, Fegg Hayes, near Turstall, Stafford, Grocer. May 17 at 3 at offices of Llewellyn and Ackrill, Piccadilly, Tunstall

Gray, Henry, Seavington St Mary, Somerset, Farm Bailiff. May 21 at 11 at offices of Paull, Court Barton, Ilminster

Greenwood, William Watson, Bradford, Stuff Manufacturer. May 13 at 10 at 12, Piccadilly, Bradford. Berry and Robinson, Bradford

Grimmer, Frederic Arthur, Norwich, Corn Merchant. May 9 at 12 at offices of Stanley, Bank pl, Norwich

Morse, Charles, Norwich, Clerk in Holy Orders. May 15 at 12 at office of Stanley, Bank Moulder, Elijah, Naunton, Gloucester, Farmer. May 15 at 11 at office of Clark, Regent st, Cheltenham

Neighbour, Alfred Edmund, Medmenham, Bucks, Innkeeper, May 13 at 3 at the Red Lion Inn, Gt Marlow. Batting, Gt Marlow

Newman, Robert, Worcester, Grocer. May 23 at 12 at office of Corbett, Avenue House, the Cross, Worcester

Normansell, Thomas, West Bromwich, Stafford, Contractor. May 12 at 11 at office of Stokes, Temple st, Birmingham

Parry, Richard, Craig Llanfair, Anglesey, Farmer. May 15 at 1.30 at Glandwr Llangefni, Anglesey. Owen, Bangor

Peacock, John Samuel, Worcester, Schoolmaster. May 19 at 12 at office of Corbett, Avenue House, the Cross, Worcester

Pitcher, Douglas, Brighton, Wine Merchant. May 15 at 3 at 145, Cheapside. Goodman, North st, Brighton

Pitt, William, Wolverhampton, Grocer. May 18 at 11.30 at offices of Whitehouse, Queen st, Wolverhampton

Plint, Thomas Edward, Leeds, Stationer's Clerk. May 15 at 3 at offices of Saville, East parade, Leeds

Preston, George Henry, Sheffield. May 17 at 2 at offices of Taylor, Norfolk row, Sheffield

Protheroe, Francis Richard Henry, Bristol, Brick Manufacturer. May 11 at 11 at office of Nicholas, Corn st, Bristol

Purchase, Edward, Bridge rd, Cowkeeper. May 15 at 2 at offices of Hamlin and Grammer, Staple inn, Holborn

Rich, James Crocker, Russell st, Leather Seller. May 17 at 2 at offices of Marshall, Chancery lane

Roberts, William, Sheffield, Grocer. May 15 at 3 at offices of Smith and Co, Meetinghouse lane, Sheffield

Rogers, John, White Lion st, Chelsea, Ironmonger. May 12 at 3 at Inns of Court Hotel, Holborn. Harrison, Pancras lane

Russell, Thomas, Taunton, Somerset, Retired Tailor.

[blocks in formation]

Tewson, Frederick William, Bungay, Suffolk, Auctioneer.
Hotel, Bungay. Bavin and Caynes, Norwich
Thompson, Thomas, Morecambe, Lancaster. Boot Maker.
Johnson and Tilly, Sun st, Lancaster

May 15 at 2 at office of

Trott, John, Inwardleigh, Devon, Shoemaker. May 15 at 3.30 at White Hart Hotel, Okehampton. Petherick, Exeter

Wetherell, Mary Ann, Scarborough, Lodging House Keeper. May 13 at 12 at office of Watts and Kitching, Queen st, Scarborough

Wickham, Henry, Liverpool, Linen Draper. May 16 at 3 at office of Lupton, Sweeting st, Liverpool

Wilson, Geofrey, and George Ralph Wilson, Halifax, Cabinet Makers. May 18 at 11 at Old Cock Hotel, Halifax. Emmet and Walker, Halifax

Wilson, Thomas Temple, Scarborough, Market Clerk. May 12 at 3 at office of Watts and Kitching, Queen st, Scarborough

Wood, William, Stourbridge, Provision Dealer. May 16 at 11 at offices of Collis, Union chbrs, Stourbridge

Woodhouse, Albert, Rowley Regis, Stafford, Nail Manufacturer. May 16 at 11 at office of Wright, High st, Cradley Heath

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA,

Arti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."

Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times he strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny.

COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 38., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocers.

Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors, H. SCHWEITZER & CO 10, Adam-street, London, W.C. AN IMPORTANT CONVENIENCE TO LAW WRITERS AND SOLICITORS.

STEPHENS' SCARLET INK FOR STEEL PENS.

This new Ink supplies the demand continually made but never before met, for a Red Ink which is uninjured by Steel or other Metallic Pens. Steel Pens left in this ink for months do not impair the beauty of its colour, nor are the Pens in the least corroded by it. The existing Red Inks rapidly destroy Steel Pens, and lose their red colour if used with other than Gold or Quill Pens. This new colour is a very rich scarlet red of great beauty. The colour of this ink is not affected by use upon parchment and is consequently of great value to Solicitors and Draughtsmen.

Sold in stone bottles, retail at 1s., 2s., 38.; and imperial quarts of 40 ounces at 6s. each. Also in glass bottles at 6d, and 1s. each. SOLD BY ALL STATIONERS.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.-All communications intended for publication in the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer.

The Publisher requests that early application should be made by persons desirous of obtaining back numbers of the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, as only a small number of copies remain on hand.

[blocks in formation]

SIX GUINEA LEGAL NEST SHOULD BE USED BY ALL SOLICITORS, ACCOUNTANTS, &c.

LA Pea Alexander & Shepheard, 27, Chancery-lane. It is the most convenient and durable yet offered to the
AW, Parliamentary, and General Printing

[blocks in formation]

DIS

ISCOUNT for Cash allowed by Yates
Alexander & Shepheard, Lonsdale Buildings, 27.
Chancery-lanc.

ST

TATEMENTS of Claim and Defence, Affidavits, Petitions, and Pleadings printed by Yates Alexander & Shepheard.

RAND AND CO.'S OWN SAUCE.

BRAND

OUPS, PRESERVED PROVISIONS,

SOUPS,

POTTED MEATS and YORK and GAME

PIES, also

ESSENCE OF BEEF, BEEF TEA,

TURTLE SOUP, and JELLY, and other

PECIALITIES for INVALIDS

SPEC

CAUTION:-BEWARE OF IMITATIONS.
Sole address,

1, LITTLE STANHOPE STREET, MAYFAIR,

and Mellow, Delicious and very Wholesome. DINNEFORD'S MAGNESIA. Universally recommended by the Profession.

K

INAHAN'S LL WHISKY.

The Cream of Old Irish Whiskies.

The Medical Profession for over Forty Years have ap-
proved of this pure solution as the bes remedy for
ACIDITY of the STOMACH, HEARTBURN, HEADACHE,
GOUT and INDIGESTION,

KINAHAN'S LL WHISKY. Gold Medal, And as the safest Aperient for Delicate Constitutions,

Exhibition, 1878; Dublin Exhibition, 1865,

the Gold Medal.

Great Titchfield-street, London, W.

Ladies Children, and Infan

[merged small][graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

DINNEFORD'S MAGNESIA. O. H. GRIFFITHS & SONS, 43, Cannon-street, E.C.

CURRENT TOPICS.

LONDON, MAY 13, 1882.

IT IS UNDERSTOOD that Mr. Justice FRY will go on circuit at the summer assizes, and that Mr. Justice KAY will remain in

town.

IT IS ANTICIPATED that a transfer of causes to Mr. Justice KAY from the lists of two or more of the other judges of the Chancery Division will shortly be made.

LORD COLERIDGE will sit with the Court of Appeal at Lincoln'sinn on Monday next, to continue the hearing of a part-heard case with witnesses. The Master of the Rolls will sit on that day with the Westminster Division of the court.

WITH REFERENCE to our statement last week as to the increase of business in the Chancery Division, we find that, while the five judges of first instance of that Division had, at the commencement of the present sittings, 615 causes on their lists, and 246 causes have been set down since, they have only disposed of 237 causes, leaving no fewer than 624 causes now on the books, a number which is daily increasing.

taken to mean that the whole costs of the preparation, attestation, and execution of the bill of sale may be retained out of the consideration money. But in the recent case of Ex parte Firth, In re Cowburn (30 W. R. 529), the Court of Appeal held that there is no debt for costs until after the transaction has been completed; hence, as on the principle of Ex parte Rolph (30 W. R. 52), a debt not yet due cannot be deducted from the sum stated as the consideration, the costs of attestation and execution of the bill of sale cannot be deducted. The Master of the Rolls said that the circumstance that costs were not actually a debt until after the transaction was complete was not present to the mind of Lord Justice JAMES, when he made the observation above quoted. It must be borne in mind in future that only money paid by the lender to satisfy the existing debts of the borrower, by his direction, can be deducted from the sum stated as the consideration; and that the costs of preparation and execution of a bill of sale are not an existing debt.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD'S Bill to amend the Judicature Acts, so as to render it necessary that the rules made by the Rule Committee of Judges should be laid upon the table of the House for forty days before coming into operation, will, we imagine, be very generally welcomed by the profession. If there were no other reason for the proposal than to secure that practitioners should have timely notice of rules effecting important changes in practice, this would be sufficient to justify the introduction of the Bill. The course which was at one time adopted of making rules to take effect before printed copies could be obtained was in the highest degree inconvenient. Of late there has been some improvement in this respect, the Rules of the Supreme Court of April, 1880, having been published three or four days before they came into to become acquainted with the effect of important changes in operation. But this is quite insufficient to enable the profession practice; and, moreover, the mode of publication is so inefficient that unless practitioners are wise enough to subscribe to a legal journal they are likely to remain in ignorance of the fact that such changes have been made. It will be remembered that three months after the Rules of April, 1880, were made, a learned Vice-Chancellor failed to recognize the existence of one of the rules specially relating to a class of actions among the most frequent in his branch of the High Court. But there are stronger reasons than the convenience of the profession for supporting Sir H. GIFFARD'S Bill. The legislative powers confided to the Rule Committee are too extensive to be exercised by any limited body, however eminent, without an effective opportunity for a veto by Parliament. an Parliament. There is a good deal of difference practically between vetoing rules not yet in operation, and rescinding rules which have already come into operation. Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD'S Bill is a return to the system in force in the Common Law Courts before the Judicature Acts, whereas the system in force in the Chancery Courts before that Act was similar to that adopted for the whole Supreme Court by that Act. By 13 Vict. c. 16, and by section 233 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, the operation of new Rules of Court was suspended until Parliament had approved of them, while by the Chancery Amendment Act, 1858, s. 12, and the Chancery Amendment Act, 1862, s. 2, Rules of Court came into force as soon as made, subject to the power of Parliament to annul them afterwards.

A STATUTE which is little known, and which has for many years lain dormant, might, perhaps, be temporarily put in force with a view of detecting crimes committed, if any, by Americans in Ireland. We allude to the Act 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 11, "for the registration of aliens," to which we recently drew attention. By this statute every alien on arriving "in any port of the United Kingdom from foreign parts must declare to the chief officer of Customs the day and place of his landing, and his name, and also to what country he belongs. The declaration is to be reduced into writing by the officer, and a copy of it sent, in the case of arrivals in Ireland, to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the alien himself being furnished with a certificate which he is to deliver up to the chief officer of Customs at the port of departure on leaving the country. The Passengers Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 119), contains a provision of still greater value for identification of strangers. By section 100 it is provided that the "master of every ship bringing passengers into the United Kingdom from any place out of Europe shall, within twenty-four hours after arrival, deliver to an "emigration officer" or his assistant, or in their absence to the chief officer of Customs at the port of arrival, a correct list, signed by such master, specifying the names, ages, and callings of all the passengers embarked."

THERE IS NO SUBJECT on which the Court of Appeal has "wobbled more than on the question of what is a proper setting forth of the consideration in a bill of sale. In Ex parte Challinor, In re Rogers (29 W. R. 205, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 260), Lord Justice JAMES said, "It appears to me quite right to deduct the costs of preparing the bill of sale and the auctioneer's charges, for that is what happens in every mortgage transaction." And Lord Justice COTTON said that "£40 was retained . . for costs partly due on other transactions, and the rest for preparing the bill of sale by the solicitor, who also happened to be the lender. There is no more difficulty in treating this money as paid to the borrower than if it had been handed to him and then applied by him in paying those costs." These observations have been naturally

IT HAS ALWAYS STRUCK US as strange that the compilers of precedent books should have bestowed so little attention on forms of leases to companies or trustees for companies. The preparation of these constitutes an important and responsible part of the business of a conveyancer, yet there are very few forms of such leases

to be found in the books, and some of those which are provided are imperfect. For instance, there are forms which omit to provide in the proviso for re-entry for the event of the winding up of the company, and in others the provision relating to this subject is inaccurately framed. Mr. DAVIDSON (vol. 5, pt. 1, p. 371) words his proviso in case "the lessees shall commence to be wound up under any Act or Acts of Parliament," &c. This is right as regards voluntary winding up, which is to be deemed to commence at the time of the passing of the resolution authorizing such winding up (Companies Act, 1862, s. 130), but it is hardly just to the lessee in the case of winding up by the court, which is to be deemed to commence "at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding up" (Ib., section 84). In some instances which have come under our notice the event specified is " in case the company shall be wound up "; and in the recent case of In re Wetley Brick and Pottery Company (30 W. R. 445), the construction of this provision came before the court. It was contended that under it the power of re-entry only accrued when the company was completely wound up. The contention was hopeless enough, because it is obvious that upon this construction the proviso would be meaningless, for when the company is fully wound up all the property will have been sold, which could never take place, as regards the lease, so long as the lessor's right to re-enter existed. The fact that the question was raised at all, however, indicates the inaccuracy of this form of proviso. The form would proper appear to be "in case the lessees shall be in course of being wound up." The decision in the recent case shows the importance to the landlord of the insertion in the proviso for re-entry of such a provision. If it is inserted, he has only to apply by summons in the winding up for leave to re-enter, and the court will order the liquidator to deliver up possession, without waiting for an action to be brought to recover the land. The exception in section 14 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (6) (i.), of a condition for forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee," would probably be held to extend to a condition for forfeiture on winding up, for section 2 (xv.) defines "bankruptcy" as including " any other act or proceeding in law having, under any Act for the time being in force, effects or results similar to those in bankruptcy." But like most other parts of this wonderful measure, this provision leaves room for doubt.

66

WE RECENTLY COMMENTED on the strict, but as we ventured to think correct, interpretation which the Court of Appeal has put on that section of the Public Health Act, 1875 (s. 174), which requires contracts by urban sanitary authorities of an amount exceeding £50 to be under seal. It was held in Young v. Corporation of Leamington (30 W. R. 500, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 579) that this section-which had already been held to be imperative and not directory only in Hunt v. Wimbledon Local Board (L. R. 4 C. P. D. 48)-applies to executed as well as executory contracts. But in Reg. v. Corporation of Norwich, decided by a divisional court on the 5th inst., GROVE and LOPES, JJ., declined to apply so strict a rule to the case of an order for payment of money out of the borough fund in discharge of a contract which the corporation might, if they pleased, have repudiated, as not being under seal, under cover of section 174 of the Public Health Act. The contract was a paving one, and the question of law arises on the construction of one of the amending Municipal Corporation Acts, 7 Will. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 44. That section provides that "whereas it is expedient to give all persons interested in the borough fund a more direct and easy remedy for any misapplication of such fund," an order of the council for the payment of any sum of money out of the borough fund may be removed by certiorari, and " may be disallowed or confirmed with costs, according to the judgment and discretion of the court." The corporation having made the order for payment of the contract price, it was sought to relieve the town of the burden of the payment by taking advantage of the section. But the two learned judges appear to have had no hesitation in discharging the rule which had been obtained. GROVE, J., chiefly put his elaborate judgment on the use of the word "misapplication" in the preamble, and pointed out out that that word could only cover cases of corrupt practices, or favouring an individual corporator, and could not apply to a case where no misconduct, properly so called, was alleged, but all that could be

[ocr errors]

charged against the corporation was a neglect to use the prescribed formalities; and LOPES, J., concurred on the same ground. The court also proceeded on the undoubtedly strong authority of Reg. v. Prest (16 Q. B. 32), in which the judicial discretion given by the section was applied to protect the disputed order for the payment of an allowance to a town clerk over and above his stipulated salary, and not legally enforceable. We understand that the judgment will be appealed against, and there is no doubt, apart from the merits of the particular case, much to be said against it. In strictness, the corporation were making a present to the contractor of the contract price, and it may be doubted whether, without a stronger and more modern decision than Reg. v. Prest, an auditor would not be bound to disallow a payment so irregularly made.

THE SUCCESS of the Government Bill for the further protection of life in Ireland, when it has passed into an Act, will depend, in some degree, on the extent to which its provisions are known; and with the view of making them known as soon and as accurately as possible, it may be well to provide that an abstract of the Act, or, if they be easily understood, of the principal sections, shall be posted up in conspicuous places in the principal towns, and perhaps even in public-houses and railway stations. It might also be convenient to add short extracts from the criminal statutes in force as to secret societies and the like. For instance, it is provided by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 28, s. 7, that if any person shall "make use of any manner of force, or inflict, or threaten to inflict, any manner of bodily pain to deter or prevent any person from giving evidence in any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, or on account of any persons having given evidence in any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, or on account of any person having declined or refused to enter into any unlawful combination or agreement," may be transported [or as the law now is, sent to penal servitude] for seven years, or imprisoned for three years. This offence, which was, by the Irish Act of Parliament, 27 Geo. 3, c. 15, a capital felony, is in England only an offence at common law, and the punishment, not being contained in the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of 1861, which apply to England and Ireland equally, is perhaps not sufficiently known in Ireland.

in order

[ocr errors]

IN ADDITION to the large Government reward offered for the detection of the Phoenix-park murderers, there has been at least one such offer from a municipal corporation in Ireland, and Mr. PARNELL has suggested that all the municipal corporations should join in offering rewards. Whether this suggestion was made before or after the large Government reward was offered is not quite clear, but it is so very much to the point that it would be unfortunate if it were to meet with no response from the not unnatural belief that if ten thousand pounds will not produce the desired result nothing will. It might, therefore, perhaps, be well if the local rewards were to be directed to the detection of the very numerous local murders of which the various municipal corporations have been made so unhappily cognizant within the last two years. And with the view of throwing the required contributions equally upon all ratepayers, instead of the somewhat invidious practice of soliciting contributions from individuals, power might very fairly be given to the various municipal corporations in Ireland to charge upon their borough funds rewards not exceeding a certain moderate amount.

On the 6th inst., at the Central Criminal Court, Frederick George, a lawyer's clerk, who was convicted of having forged a transfer of £172 38. 108. in the Consolidated Three per Cent. Annuities, and personated Mr. Robert Bland Goodrich, the holder of the stock, in order to effect the transfer, was brought up to receive judgment. Mr. Justice Hawkins, in passing sentence upon him, remarked that the position which the prisoner held as a solicitor's clerk was one requiring great integrity, and when confidence was betrayed by such a person a serious punishment must follow. Moreover the prisoner had been convicted of a serious fraud upon the Bank of England, and if the offence were to be passed over with a light sentence, he should be endangering the public and of justice, he felt that it was absolutely necessary that he should property of hundreds of thousands of persons. Therefore, in the interest of the pass upon the prisoner a sentence of seven years' penal servitude.

trustees commenced the present action of Heath v. Pugh in the FORECLOSURE AND THE STATUTES OF Common Pleas Division. The action was brought, not only against

LIMITATION.

THE case of Heath v. Pugh, which has recently been decided by the House of Lords (reported in this week's issue of the Weekly Reporter), is inferior to few in the vicissitudes of its fortunes, and the practical importance of its ruling. The litigation arose out of the frauds of one Crealock, a trustee of a settlement; who, being also a solicitor, acted as solicitor to, and practical manager of, the trust. In 1856 he and his co-trustee Heath, a guileless clergyman, lent some of the trust moneys to one Stephens, upon a mortgage in fee of certain lands, including the lands sought to be recovered in the recently decided action. In 1859 Stephens contracted for the sale of several portions of the mortgaged lands, including the present lot, which was contracted to be sold to the defendant Pugh. Crealock, who acted as solicitor for Stephens in relation to this contract, represented to him that his co-trustee Heath was abroad, and that great delay would be occasioned by obtaining his concurrence in the conveyance to the purchasers, or in a re-conveyance to Stephens; and the latter agreed that, to save trouble, the mortgage of 1856 should be concealed from the purchasers. Crealock, in whose hands the title deeds were deposited for safe custody, accordingly colluded with him to make a fraudulent conveyance to the purchasers, including the defendant Pugh, purporting to be free from all incumbrances except certain leases. Stephens, who had no design to do anything fraudulent, paid the purchase-money to Crealock, who embezzled it, concealed the payment, and continued, during some years, regularly to pay the interest upon the whole of the mortgage debt. This was only one of several other like transactions, into which we need not enter. Of course Crealock's embarrassments ultimately became overwhelming, and in 1870 he absconded, taking with him, among other things, the original mortgage deed of 1856. It only remained to determine which, out of several innocent persons, must suffer for Crealock's frauds. The other trustee Heath immediately filed a bill in chancery against Crealock, Stephens, and the several purchasers; praying, as against Pugh, for a declaration that the lands were still subject to the mortgage, for foreclosure, and that he might be ordered to deliver up the title deeds in his possession. This was the well-known case of Heath v. Crealock (23 W. R. 95, L. R. 18 Eq. 215, 10 Ch. 22). The right of Pugh to avail himself of the old equitable plea, that he was a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, in bar of any relief sought against him in a court of equity, evidently was, and the Court of Appeal held that it was, too clear to be questioned. But the Vice-Chancellor allowed himself to be misled by the case of Colyer v. Finch (19 Beav. 500, 5 H. L. C. 905). That case decided that a mortgagee may have foreclosure even against a purchaser for value without notice: a decision that is quite in accordance with principle; for foreclosure is in truth, not the granting of any equitable relief against the person foreclosed, but is merely a declaration that equity will not afterwards interfere to prevent the person foreclosing from enforcing at common law any rights to which he may be entitled. The ViceChancellor, apparently not apprehending this distinction, and forgetting that, though by the Chancery Procedure Act a sale might be ordered in a foreclosure suit, yet a sale is by no means the same thing as foreclosure, and ought not, therefore, to be granted as a matter of course in all cases in which foreclosure would be granted, ordered the lands to be sold and the title deeds to be delivered to the purchasers. This decree was in 1874 varied by the then Court of Appeal in Chancery, consisting of the Lord Chancellor Cairns, and Lords Justices James and Mellish; who, as against Pugh, reduced this part of the decree to a bare foreclosure. The judgments then pronounced contain the most recent, ample, and authoritative exposition of the equitable privileges of a purchaser for value without notice. Though the decree also set aside a re-conveyance to Stephens which had been fraudulently obtained by Crealock's machinations, yet it left the defendant in possession of the lands, and no steps could be taken in the Court of Chancery to disturb him. Under the old system it was necessay for this purpose to bring an action of ejectment at law. For some reason the plaintiff Heath in whom, with Crealock, the legal estate was vested, delayed taking any such step until a new trustee was appointed in 1878, when the two

Pugh, but also against his tenant who was in possession of the lands; but nothing was said on this point in any of the courts before which the case came, and the action was treated as if it had been against Pugh only. Had this action been brought immediately upon, or even within a year or two after, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Heath v. Crealock, there would have been practically no defence. But in 1878, more than twenty years had elapsed since the execution of the mortgage deed in 1856; and it so happened that the plaintiffs, chiefly by reason of the absence of Crealock, were unable to prove any such payment of principal or interest as would be binding upon the defendant Pugh. This enabled Pugh to raise the defence of the statute, and the whole interest and importance of the case lies in the varying fortunes of this defence.

At the trial at Nisi Prius Denman, J., directed a verdict and gave judgment for the plaintiffs, upon the ground (as briefly stated in the report of the appeal) that the foreclosure decree prevented the statute from being a bar to the action. This is the view which has finally prevailed. The court in Banc, consisting of Lord Coleridge, C.J., and Lindley, J., reversed this decision, and entered judgment for the defendants. It was a question whether they should not rather direct a new trial, in order to give the plaintiffs (who alleged that they had been taken by surprise) another chance of proving a payment to take the case out of the statute; but, in the first place, it by no means clearly appeared that the plaintiffs had any evidence to produce; and, in the second place, the court thought that a new trial, which, when asked upon these grounds, and under these circumstances, is something in the nature of an indulgence, ought not, as against an innocent defendant who was a purchaser for value without notice, to be granted to plaintiffs who might, by proper diligence, have got all they wanted from the beginning. The last point is well worthy of notice; and we do not understand that upon this point the judgment has been overruled. To cut short the tale of litigation, the judgment of the court in Banc was reversed, and that of Denman, J., restored, by the Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Selborne, C., and Baggallay and Brett, L.JJ., and the House of Lords has recently affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The decision thus finally arrived at is no doubt better suited to the public convenience than the opposite decision would have been; and we can easily guess that the courts must anxiously have desired to come to this conclusion if they possibly could. But we cannot regard with unmixed satisfaction the process by which the result, in itself desirable, was arrived at. There was no dispute about the state of the law before the Judicature Acts; and it was not disputed that before the Judicature Acts the result of the action must have been different. A foreclosure decree then had no effect whatever upon the running of the statute as against the right to bring an action of ejectment. By what means has a foreclosure decree acquired this power which it used not to have? It is useless, for this purpose, to insist upon the practical importance of the foreclosure decree, as being necessary to the secure prosecution of the mortgagee's legal claim; because the decree possessed exactly the same practical importance before the Judicature Acts, and yet was of no avail to intercept the running of the statute. And the question was not, as some seem to have thought, whether a foreclosure decree might not very properly and reasonably possess this virtue of conferring a new right to bring an action within the meaning of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27; but something quite different-namely, How did it get this recent virtue, which, by the admission of everybody, it used not to have? And to this question we have found no satisfactory reply.

The quality in question might have been expressly, and perhaps with great propriety, conferred upon foreclosure decrees by the Judicature Acts. But we think that such changes ought, when they are beneficial, to be openly introduced by legislation, instead of being smuggled in by dubious implication and remote consequence. No refutation of his own conclusion could possibly be more complete than the judgment of Lord Cairns. It is a specimen of such reasoning as he very seldom countenances by his example, and affords the best possible grounds for suspecting an opinion for which such an advocate could do so little. Let the reader judge. We grant his postulate, that if the mortgage had

« PreviousContinue »