« PreviousContinue »
grouped into two classes—(1) cases relating to rent in arrear at the commencement of the winding up; (2) oases relating to rent accruing subsequently to that date. As to rent in arrear at the commencement of the winding Dp, if the landlord was a legal creditor of the company in respect of rent in arrear at the commencement of its winding up he was not allowed to distrain for the arrears of rent, tut must prove his debt like any other creditor. Moreover, in cases of this kind the circumstance that the liquidator had retained possession and carried on the company's works had been held not to entitle a landlord, or a mortgagee with a power of distress as for rent, to distrain for rent in arrear. If, however, the landlord was not a legal creditor of the company, by reason of the company not being bis tenant, he was permitted to distrain even for rent in arrear at the commencement of the winding np. And in such a case he would be allowed to distrain, altbongh the liquidator offered to allow the arrears to be proved as a debt in the winding up. Next, as to rent accruing after the commencement of the winding np. If the liquidator bad retained possession for the purposes ol the winding np—i.e., if he had used the property for csrrying on the company's business, or bad kept the property in order to sell it or to do the beet he conld with it— the landlord would be allowed to distrain for rent which had become due sinoe the commencement of the winding up. But, if he had kept po-eession by arrangement with the landlord, and for bis benefit as well as for the benefit of the company, and there was no agreement with the liquidator that he should pay rent, the landlord was not allowed to distrain. When the liquidator retained the property for the purpose of advantageously disposing of it, or when he continned to use it, the rent ought to be regarded as a debt contracted for the purpose of winding np the company, and ought to bs paid in full, like any other debt or expense properly incurred by the liquidator for the same purpose; and in such a case it appeared to his lordship that the rent for the whole period during which the property was so retained or used ought to be paid in full, without reference to the amount which could be realized by a distress. This was the view taken bv James, L. J., in In re The Lundy Granite Company (19 W. R. 609, L. R. 6 Ch.462), and by Pry, J., in Exparte Boberlt and Wright (L. R. 18 Ch. D. 649), and by Kay, J., in the present case. But no authority had yet gone the length of deciding that a landlord was entitled to distrain for, or be paid in full, rent accruing since the commencement of the winding up, when the liquidator had done nothing except abstain from trying to get into possession of the property which the company held as lessee. If the landlord had endeavoured to re-enter, and the liquidator had objected, the case might be different ; but, having regard to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1862, his lordship was of opinion that in the case now supposed the landlord must rely on his right, if any, to re-enter, and prove for the arrears due to him, and that he was not entitled to anything more. In the present case the only facts the landlord had to rely upon were—1. The fact that the liquidator left the company's plant and machinery where he found them until he sold tbem in July, 1381; 2. The fact that he bad tbem valued in May, 1880, with a view to a sale whioh was not carried out ; 3. The faot that he took no steps to surrender the company's interest in the colliery and the 16S acres to the landlord. In bis lordship's opinion these facts were not sufficient to entitle the landlord either to distrain or to be paid in full. He could not regard the rent ordered to be paid as a debt or cost, ohirse or expense inourred by the liquidator in the course of or for the purpose of ihe winding up, and in his opinion the order appealed from ought to be discharged and the summons dismissed with costs.—Solicitors, Venn itCo. ; Simpson, Hammond, 4; Co.
Dower—Divobcrd Wife.—In a case of Frampton v. Stephens, before Fry, J., on the 11th inst., the question arose whether a wife, who had obtained a divorce on the ground of her husband's cruelty and adultery, was after his death entitled to dower out of his real estate. The wife and her second husband sued the beir-at-Iaw of the first husband for dower out of real estate, whioh had descended from the first husband. The defendant demurred, andFRY, J., allowed the demurrer. He said that in Coke on Littleton, 32a, it is laid down that for a wife to have dower "it is necessary that the marriage doe continue, for if that be dissolved the dower ceaaeth; ubi nullum mairimonium, tit nulla dot. But this is to be understood when the husband and wife are divorced A vinculo matrimonii, as in the case of precontract, consanguinity, affinity, 4c, and not a mensa et thoro only, as for adulterie." It had been contended that the rale in reference to the right to dower ceasing on a divorce a vinculo only referred to the cases specified by Lord Coke, and not to divorces obtained by the wife on the gronnd of adultery, which was then only a mensa et thoro. It was, perhaps, enough that the language of Lord Coke was general and meant what it said, but on examining the older authority of Bracton, to whom reference was made in Coke, the same rale was laid down, and under the old law the divoroe was a vinculo, and it was only in 44 Eliz. that opinion changed and the new practice was introdnced. His lordship thought, therefore, the law well established that a divorce a vinculo was a bar to dower. It was said that H would be a great hardship on the wife if, through no fanlt of her own, but on account of the misconduct of her husband, she were to lose her right to dower. The answer was that iD pronouncing its decree the Divoroe Court had power to provide alimony for the wife, and in doing so would no doubt take into account the legal effect of the divorce. It was also said that it was the practice, when a husband obtained an Act for divorce, to provide exprersly that the right to dower should oease. That, however, was merely declaratory of the law.—Solicitors, Saunders, Hawksford, 4 Bennett.
Practice—Stating Proceedings—Concurrent Actions — Lis Alibi Pendens.—In the case of iCHenry v. Lewis, before Chittv, J., on the 13th inst, Judgment was delivered upon a notion made by the defendants that all future proceedings in the action might be stayed, on the gronnd that there were pending two other actions against the sune defendants, one in England and the
other in America, involving claims identically the same as those sought to be enforced in the action before his lordship. It appeared that the actions were all representative ones brought against the defendants, as trustees of a scheme for reconstructing the Atlantic and Great Western Railway Company, in respect of alleged breaohes of trust in their carrying out the scheme. The defendants offered to give undertakings with the object of enabling the questions in the action to be determined in the American action. Ckitty, J., said that the two actions in England were not, in his opinion, precisely identical, and there was no authority for holding that the pendancy of a foreign action was sufficient ground for staying an action in this country. None of the actions had yet been brought to a hearing, and it was not usual in the case of representative actions like the present—for instance, in a creditor's administration action—for the court to stay proceedings in a second action until judgment had been obtained in the first and similar action. Although the American action was more comprehensive than the English, yet his lordship did not oonsider that the offer of undertakings by the defendants to have the questions at issue between the parties tried in the American action was any ground for acceding to this motion. His lordship, therefore, refused the motion, bur, taking into consideration the allegation of the trustees that they were being harassed by a multiplioity of actions, made an order that costs of the motion be costs in the action,—Solicitors, Trindert; Mores is PatlU ton.
Practice—Trial Before A Judge And Jurt—Rules Of Court, 1875, Ord. 36, Br. 8, 4.—In the case of The Oldbury Local Board v. Baker, before Chitty, J., on the 12th inst., a motion having been made by the defendant for the trial of the action before a judge and jury, his lordship held that it was not the usual practice for the court to settle tho actual issues of fact to bi tried, and that it was sufficient for the party moving to state in his notice of motion that he required that "this action shall b9 tried before a judge and jury," without referring to the issues of fact.—Solicitors, Wilkint 4- Co., for Wright <L Co., Oldbury; F. Needham.
Payment Out Of Court—Presumption Against Childbirth—SpinsTer Aged Fifty.—In the case of In re Howard, before Cbitty, J., on the 13th inst., a petition was presented praying that a sum paid in under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act might be paid out on the joint receipt of the petitioners. Part of the fund represented real esta'e settled under a will upon one of the petitioners for life, who was, at the date of the hearing of the petition, a spinster and within a fortnight of attaining the age of fifty years, with remainder to uses in favour of her children, and in default of her bavins; any children entitled to take, with remainder to uses in favour of the petitioners. It was submitted that the oourt would make the order prayed, as the lady was of an age which rendered maternity improbable, and the more so becanse she had never been and was not married. The case of Millmrs Estate (20 W. R. 823, L. R 14 Eq. 245) was referred to, where Malins, V.C., made an order similar to that prayed in the present case, upon the presumption that a lidy, nged forty-nine years Bnd nine months, who had been married twenty-six years to a husband ttien living, and had never bad any children and would not have any by him. Cbitty, J., deoliaed to make the order. It inight be said that the spinsterhood of the Udy did not decrease the likelihood of children being born if she married. There were, moreover, cafes on record of maternity at an age certainly exceeding that of this lady. The nsual order for investment would bo made.—Solicitors, Alfred Howard; IF. B. Stevens.
Divorce—Cruelty—Separation Deed—Covenant Not To Sue—SubSequent Adultery—Revival.—In the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, on the 11th inst., the case of Bote v. Rose, which was a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery and cruelty, was tried before the President of the Division without a jury. The parties were married in 1861, and, in 1877, owing to repeated quarrels, they executed a deed of separation, which contained a covenant on the part of the wife that she woul I not avail herself of any previous act on ber husband's part. After the execution of the deed of separation, the respondent committed adultery, and the petitioner alleged acts of cruelty both before and after the date of the deed. The adultery was admit'.ed, but the respondent failed in proving any act of cruelty after the separation. In giving judgment, Sir J. Hannen, P., said that the covenant in the deed had estopped the petitioner from obtaining relief in respect of any cruelty committed before the date of the dead. According to the old practice of the Division, the adultery committed after the date of the separation deed would have revived the previous cruelty, but in Oandy v. Oandy (26 Solicitors' Journal, 385) the Court of Appeal bad held tbat the commission of adultery after a deed of separation was no offence against a wife. He could not, therefore, decree a dissolution of marriage, but only a judicial separation.—Solicitors, Hunt; JFillit.
(Before W. T. S. Daniel, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) May 2, 9.—Ex parte Freeman, Re Berry. Uuder an elegit the execution creditor cannot have the benefit of equitable execution ; that must be obtained by appointment of a receiver in the action in which the judgment on which the elegit issues is obtained. Where the sheriff seized goods in the possession of the debtor, the legal title to which was in the grantee under a bill of sale, and the sheriff's officer, M agent of the bill of sale holder, sold the goods, and after paying the bill of sale holder his debt and costs, there was a surplus, that surplus was not bound by the elegit, and did not belong to the execution creditor, but constituted assets of the debtor, and, on his becoming bankrupt before sale, would pass to the trustee: Salty. Cooper (L. E. 16 Ch. D. 544).
Ringmead, instructed by Oush § Phillipp, London, for the execution creditors.
West, instructed by Peel, Stanford, <t Harris, Bradford, for the trustee.
His Honour said :—This was an application made in the matter of proceedings for liquidation by arrangement of the affairs of John William Berry, manufacturer, by or on behalf of George Scott Freeman, of 103, Cannon-street, London, secretary of the General Life and Fire Insurance Company, for an order that the snm of £54 4s. 6d., being tbe surplus proceeds arising from the sale of the goods and chattels of the above-named debtor, which were seized in execution by the sheriff of Yorkshire, under a writ of elegit issued upon a judgment recovered by the said George Scott Freeman in tbe Queen's Bench Division of the High Conrtof Justice againstthesaid debtor, and which said sum of £54 4s. 6d. has been paid into conrt, pursuant to an order made in this matter by tbisooort on December 13, 1881, may be paid out to the said G. 8. Freeman, and that such further order as to costs or otherwise may be made as this court may seem fit.
The facts, which do not appear to be disputed, were as follow :—
1. On August 20, 1881, a judgment was recovered by Freeman against the debtor in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice for 474 17s.
2. On October 13, 1881, a writ of elegit founded on the said judgment wai issued by Freeman, and sent to the sheriff of Yorkshire, under which he seized the goods andohattels of tbedebtor; but on October 15, 1881,the sheriff withdrew from such possession on reseipt of a letter from the solicitors of Freeman authorizing the sheriff so to do.
3. On November 15, 1881, a second writofefcjil was issued and lodged with the sheriff to recover £53 19s. due on the said judgment, and £2 2s. costs, and on November 16, 1881, the sheriff seized the goods and chattels of the debtor under the said writ of elegit, and remained in possession uutil the 28th of November, 1881.
4. On tbe said 28th of November, the sheriff received notice from Mr. George Washington, of Halifax, wool and waste dealer, that he claimed to be the owner of tbe said goods and chattels under and by virtue of an assignment thereof, dated February 1, 1881, executed by the debtor for securing to Washington the repayment of £400, money lent, and interest, and which was duly registered ss a bill of sale, and Washington claimed that the sum of £320 or thereabouts, on November 28, remained due to him on the said bill of sale, in payment of which default had been made by the debtor. And on that day Washington entered and took possession of the goods and chattels which had been seized and taken possession of by the said sheriff, and the sheriff retired.
5. The right of Washington under the said bill of sale to the legal ownership of the said goods and chattels was not disputed, and was not questioned on this motion. The original bill of sale, and an office copy thereof, were produced on tbe hearing of this motion, and no objection to the validity of tbe bill of sale was raised.
6. The sheriffs officer who had seized and remained in possession up to the 28th of November, upon production of the bill of sale arranged with Washington to sell the goods and chattels of the debtor as the agent of Washington, and not as the officer of the sheriff, and proceeded to make arrangements for the sale by publio auction on December 9, 1881.
7. On November 29, 1881, the debtor filed a petition for liquidation, and on December 1, Henry Pockett was duly appointed receiver of the debtor's estate and effects, and manager of his business. On December 17, at tbe first general meeting of creditors, resolutions were duly passed for liquidation by arrangement, and Pnckett was duly appointed trustee.
8. On December 6, an interim order was made, on the application of the debtor and receiver, restraining further proceedings under the sale until after December 14.
9. On the 8th of December Freeman's solicitors received from the solicitor of the debtor and receiver a telegram as follows:—" Bill of sale holder sells to-morrow. Will you consent to an order that the whole of plant be sold and the money paid into court without prejudice? If so plant can be sold as going concern and it will benefit all parties greatly. Beply paid." To this telegram the following reply was sent br Freeman's solicitors: "We have no objection to the sale if it is more beneficial and the proceeds are paid into court. But it most be distinctly understood that this is without prejudice to all our client's rights and remedies."
10. Tbe arrangement thus assented to was carried out in good faith between the parties. The sale was held, the property sold, and after paying Washington his debt and costs (including costs of sale) there remained tbe sum of £54 4s. 6d. as the net proceeds of the sale, and which was duly paid into court, remains there, and has now to be disposed of upon this motion,
Mr. West, on behalf of the trustees, took a preliminary objection to the validity of tbe eligit issued on the 15th of November, on the ground that, it appearing that the original judgment was for £74 17s., and the elegit only for £53 19'., the elegit ought to show on its faca how the difference between £74 17s. and £53 19s. has been satisfied, and cited as his authority the case of Sherwood v. Clark (15 M. & W. 764). The answer was that, as appears from the second paragraph of Molony's affidavit, tbe £33 19a. was described as the balance due on the judgment. But the original writ was not produced, and the amount lodged with the sheriff, which was produced, described ths writ as indorsed to levy £53 19s. and £2 2s. costs, without more. I did not decide this technical question, preferring to hear and decide upon the merits. Of course the objection remains open to the trustee.
Upon the merits, it was contended by Sir. Bingmead on behalf of Freemsn that the actual seizure by the sheriff on the 16.h of November was effectual to bind the interest of the debtor in the goods seized, whether that interest was legal or equitable, and that therefore, on the 16th of November, by force of that seizure, Freeman became a secured creditor within section 16, sub-section 5, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. No authority was cited by Mr. Bingmead in support of that contention. The authorities he cited were oonfinel to oases which eitablish that an equitable execntion may be obtained by the appointment of a receiver on an application founded on the judgment, whether an elegit has been issued or not, and that suoh an application may be made ex parte. An elegit, it must be remembered, is a common law writ, and empowers the sheriff to seizj the lands or goods of the debtor within his bailiwick which are at law the lands or goods of the debtor, but none other. If in this oase the sheriff bad seized and extended the goods of the debtor, and completed all the proceedings necessary for giving Freeman the right to acquire them under the elegit, the acta of the sheriff wonld have been wrongful as against Washington, who was the legal owner of the goods, and he might have reoovered from the sheriff the value in trover. And so if, after the sheriff having had notioe of Washington's title to the goods under the bill of sale, Freeman had ruled the sheriff to return tbe writ, the sheriff would have returned, and rightly returned, nulla bona. Tbe attempt to treat the sheriff's seizure under the elegit as equivalent to equitable execution is an extension of the dootrine wbicb, as judge of an inferior court, I have no authority to make. In the reply to the telegram of the 8th of Deoember the solicitors carefully reserved their rights and remedies; bit as the aob of bankruptcy had been already committed by the debtor, of whioh they had notice, and a receiver had been appointed, any attempt to obtain equitable execution by an application founded on the judgment would have been futile, and therefore was prudently, as I conoeive, not made. The oase of Salt v. Cooper (L. B. 16 Ch. D. 544), a more reoenc decision than any oited by Mr. Bingmead, is an authority whioh clearly and most usefully Btates ani illustrates the law upon tbe novel acd somewhat puzzling questions whioh have arisen out of the recent exhumation of the long-buried and supposed to be defunot and obsolete writ of elegit used as an execution by a creditor of the goods and ohattels of a debtor.
Mr. West's contention upon the merits was that, quoad any interest of the debtor in the goods seized by the sheriff whioh might remain after satisfying the debt and costs recoverable under the bill of sale, the exeoution was a nullity, and that Buoh equitable interest as the debtor might have oould only be reaohed by the appointment of a reoeiver, to be made upon an application under the judgment for that purpose, and I think that contention right.
The motion will therefore be refused, and the costs will follow the event, unless the parties have arranged otherwise.
(Before Mr. Serjeant Tindal Atkinson, Judge.) Dec. 5.— West v. South- Western Railway Company. Delay on delivering goods—Absence of special contract—Reasonable time in for delivery.
His Honour, in giving judgment in this case said :—
The plaintiff in this action carries on the business of a gardener in Salisbury, and ho seeks to recover from the defendants the sum of £15, for damages resulting from a breach of tbeir duty as common carriers, in delaying the delivery of four boxes of potatoes intended for competition for a prize to ba given at the International Exhibition held at the Crystal Palace, Sydenham, in May of this year. The facts proved at ths hearing were that one King, a carrier, was employed by the plaintiff to forward the potatoes to the exhibition, and that for that purpose he made inquiries at the office of Messrs. Chaplin & Home, who carry on the business of carriers and agents to railway companies, on Saturday, the 17th of September, when, if the packages were sent that day, they would reaoh the Crjstal Palace, and was told by a clerk in their office that they would arrive on Monday morning following. On this nssurance King delivered them on the part of the plaintiff, on the Saturday morning, saying at the same time that the potato?* were for the exhibition, and that it took place on the Tuesday following. The defendants admit the delivery on tbe Saturday, and that the packages did not arrive at the show until nine o'cloek on Tuesday morning. The mode of forwarding goods by the defendants to stations on the Brighton and South Coast Railway, of which the CryBtal Palace is one, is when they arrive at the defendants' central goods station at Nine Elms, in London, to convey them by cart to the Brighton Company's station at Birmondsey to be forwarded. In the present instance the plaintiffs packages reached London late on Saturday night, and Sunday intervening, they were taken to the Brighton Company on tbe Monday morning, and wtre. by that company delivered on the Tuesday morning at nine o'clock, bu'. too late for tbe purpose for which the plaintiff had sent them. Upon these facts, Mr. Powning contended, at the hearing on the Dart of the defendants, that the contract for carriage being made with Chaplin & Horn--, the action had been wrongly brought against the present defendants and that the plaintiff must bo non-suited, but th'x is answered by the fact that the defendants have made out and delivered a debit note against the plaintiff s agent, King, in tbeir own name and have received the money for the carriage, their way-bill also describing him as the consignor, tbe fact being, as is extensively known, that Chaplin & Home act as colle:ting agents for most of the large railways. No special contract was made for the carriage in this case, and the only question in the ease is—was there unnecessary delay on the part of the defendants in the transit? It mast be observed that a carrier U not, in the p
absence of a special contract, bound to deliver the goads intrusted to bim within any given time, bat only within a time which ii reasonable, bating regard to all the circumstances of the case. Taylor v. The Qreat Northern Railway Company (L. R. 1 C. P. 385. In giving judgment, Erie, C.J., in that oase said:—"I think a common carriers duty to deliver safely has nothing to do with the time of delivery: that is a matter of oontract, and when there is no express contract there is an implied contract tn deliver witbin a reasonable time, and that I take to mean a time within which the carrier ran deliver using all reasonable exertions." In the same case it was said by Mr. •Tostice Montague Smith, "Common carriers do indeed insure to this extent, that they will safely and securely carry the goods, but not to the extent of guaranteeing their arrival at any particular time." A specified time of delivery, according to the decision in the above case, and by which decision I am, sitting as a judge in an inferior court, governed, must be the subject of contract; and whether there was, or was not, a special contract to carry the four packages to the exhibition by the Monday following the delivery on the Saturday, is the question the answer to which must govern the present inquiry. With regard to what was the reel contract entered into by the carriers' clerk with King, the agent of the plaintiff, what actually took place is of Importance. It must be assumed that the clerk was not aware, beyond the mere fact of the exhibition being held at the Crjstal Palace as an agricultural show, of the special circumstance that prizes were to be awarded to the successful competitors, and, unless it was distinctly brought home to his knowledge that the goods were purposely sent for that object—that is, the chance of obtaining a prize—there is no oontract by the defendants to carry (be goods sent within a given time, tut only with the ordinary practice end course of the defendants' business. The assurance of the clerk when the inquiry was made by the plaintiff's agent on the Saturday that the packages would reach the exhibition by the Monday morning was, it appears to me, only the expression of a belief on his part that they would do so, and althongh he was told that the contents of the packages were intended for the exhibition on Tuesday, no intimation was given that the object of sending them was to compete for a prize, and that unless they arrived there on the Monday the plaintiff would le deprived of his chance. "The law as it is to be found in the reported cases has fluctuated," says Cockburn, C.J., in giving judgment in Simpion v. North-Western Railway Company (1 Q. B. D. 274),but the principle is now settled that whenever either the object of the sender is specially hrought to the 2oti<e of the earner, or circumstances |ire known to the carrier from which the object ought in reason to be inferred, so that the object may be taken to have been within the contemplation of both partie", damages may be recovered for the natural const quenceB of the failure of that object." I am of opinion that the special circumstances of irizes being given at tl e exhibition to successful competitors was not known iy the clerk of the carrier, or that it could fairly be inferred he did know the fucts so as to make it part of a Bpecial contract to deliver the goods on the Monday for that purpose, and the only question that remains is, was there an unreasonable delay P Looking at the facts as a jury, I cannot come to the conclusion that in this case there wa«. The goods were delivered on the Saturday and forwarded to London on (he same day, and delivered on the Monday to the Brighton Company, and by then) delivered on the Tuesday morning, and it is olear that in the absence of a guarantee or a contract to deliver within a specified time that a carrier is not bound to neglect all other business to deliver a parcel out of the ordinary course of bis business, and a delay in tbe delivery of a parcel, in the absence of a special contract, of twenty-four hours oan scarcely be said to be unreasonable. In this case the verdict must be entered for the defendants, but inasmuch as the plaintiff's agent was rrisled by the clerk's assnmnce that the goods would be delivered by the Monday, I think i is a case in which he should not be visited with costs. Noddtr, for the plaintiff. JWnt'nj, for the defendants.
(Before B. T. Williams, Esq., Q.C., Judge.)
Gladstone" Lodge of Ancient Order of Shepherds.)
li s Honour, in giving judgment, said:—This action Las been brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of £17, the value of household furniture, and other goods, alleged to have been illegally converted by the defendants. Thomas Merriam was the treasurer of a registered friendly society, and he as snch treasurer had in bis hands money belonging to the society to the amount of £25 19a. 8Jd. Therenpon proceedings were taken against him under the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, s. 20, to recover this sum, and a warrant to raise it by a seizure and sale of his goods was issued by the stipendiary magistrate of Swansea. The warrant was dated on the 16th of Jane, and it was put into execntion on the 17th. On the 24 th of June, whilethe officers of the law were in possession, the plaintiff, who wai Merriam's landlord, distrained for rent due npon the goods that were then in their custody. The goods were afterWards sold under the magistrate's warrant, and the plaintiff, the landlord, seeks in this action to recover damages in trover or for the conversion of these goods. Even assuming that be had made a legal distress, it is perfectly clear that he is not entitled to succeed. It is well established that a landlord who has distrained upon goods cannot maintain trover for them, for he has no property in them, but has them only as a pledge with a power to sell by statute (Mcuceux v. Oareharh, Selwyn's Nisi Prius, 1303, and other cases collected in 2 W. Sannd., 89, in the note to Wiliraham t. Snow), In addition to that there was in this oase no legal distress. The goods when they were distrained npon on the
24th of June were then In the custody of the law, and not disdainable by tbe landlord (Peacock v. Purvis, 2 B. & B., JFharton v. Naylor, 12 Q. B.). Whatever rights the landlord baa with reference to goods seized in exeontioa are determined by the statute 9 Anne (and Anne o. 14, 1), which entitles him to the payment of rent dne not exceeding in the whole a year's rent before they are removed. It is diffionlt to decide whether sub-section 7 of seotion 15 of the Friendly Societies Act of 1875 includes a landlord's distriss, and if it does bow far the landlord's right nnder the Statute of Anne is affected by the provisions of tbat sub-seotion. The Legislature has left these points in tbe greatest possible vagueness, and I have been able to find no authority throwing Bny light upon them, but in this oase I need not consider them, as I am clearly of opinion, on the first two grounds, that the plaintiff is not entitled to anooeed in this action. I give judgment for the defendants with costs and with solicitors' fees.
SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of direotors of this association was held on Wednesday, May 10, at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, the following direotors being; present:—Mr. Hickman in tbe chair; Messrs. Asker (Norwich), Brook, Harris (Leicester), Herlger, Hunter, Keen, Mellersh (Oodalming), Pennington, Rose, Smith, Styan, Walters, and Woolbert (Mr. Eiffe, secretary). A sum of £350 was distributed in grants of relief to necessitous solicitors and their widows and families, fourteen new members were added to tbe assooiatioD, and other gsneral business transacted.
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
iHtgr.MEDIATB ElAMIJATIOS, APRIL, 1882.
The following candidates were snooessfal at the Intermediate Examiuation held on the 27th of April, 1882 :—
Adkins, Frederick William
Devonshire, Robert Llewellyn
Franklin, Francis Sydney Herle t
Freeland, Francis George
Gandell, Thomas Pearse
Gardiner, Douglas William
Geach, George Chambers
George, David Arthur Scale
Gibson, Edward James
Goodden, John Henry
Gorton, Walter Frederick
Graham, Arthur Lionel
Gyles, Charles Sidney George
Hal), John Roberts
Harrod, Henry Dawes
Harrison, Frank Ormerod
Hay, William Thomas
Hellier, Edward William
Henson, John Rossell, B.A.
Hewison, Arthur Edward
nill, Arthur Norman
Hirat, Edward Theodore, B.A.
Hockin, Philip Roe
Holdich, Thomas Waite
Holdway, Geoffrey Fynea
Hooper, John Edmund
Howell, Alexander Nathaniel Yatmsn
Hughes, Percy Hamilton
Hurlston, Harold James
Jncok, Edward James
Jelf, Richard William
Jenkins, Chirles Bevan
Jonas, George Jolin BeynoO
Kingdom, Frederick William
Lendon, Frederick D'ckes
Peacock, Anthony Fnwcett
Pemberton, Cyril Warner Lee
Prior, Henry Granger
Seldon, William Edward
8bortf, Waller Charles Jam«s
Shots, James Ashley Binford
Simpson, Harry Edward
Smith, Charles Janes
Smith, William Joseph
Smith, William Thomas Arundel
Spink, Albert Henry
Spink, Frederic Walter
Sprigge, John Joshua
Stewart, Charles James, B.A.
Stokes, Reginald Sewell
Taylor, Reuben PricJ
Thomas, John Llewelyn Fugh
Thompson, Arthur Holt
Thompson, Simon Frederick
limbrell, Andrew William
Tuckett, Richard Clapson
Turner, Charles Hastings
Tyrrell, Harry R:chard
Uuderhill, John Edward, B.A.
Urmston, Arthur BrabaZJn
Waddington, James Charles
Wallis, Arthur Thomas
Walsh, J ihn Ernest
Ward, Arthur Egerton Neville
Waters, Stanley Edward
Watson, Edgar Henry
Webb, Robert Hervey
Webber. Alexander Herbett, M A.
Wilks, George Stringer
Willcocks, George William Hamilton
W illiams, Frank Harold
Williams, Laurence Gardner
Wilson, Thomas Watson
Woodforde, Herbert Chirubirlaine
Harrison, William Robert
Nash, Foster Harry Okey, B.A.
Symes, Gustavus Phelpa, B.A.
UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. At a meeting of this socioly, held at Clement's-inn Hall, on Welneaday, May 10, Mr. H. J. Brown in the chair, the following motion was brought forward by Mr. Rundle-Levey :—"That legislation providing for the pleasures of the people is needed." He was supported in the affirmative by Messrs. Brown and Eiloart, and opposed by Messrs. Tillotson, Shirley, Smith, and Collyer. The opener then replied, and on the motion being put to the meeting the votes were equal. The ohairman then gave his casting vote against the motion.
MR. HENRY WOODFORDE. Mr. Henry Woodforde, solicitor, died at his residence, Ansford Villa, Clevedon, on the 23rd ult , at the age of seventy-four. Mr. Woodforde was born in 1808, and was admitted a solicitor in 1829. He had carried on business for very many years at Clevedon, hla practice being one of the largest in the town. He was a perpetual commissioner for Somersetshire and Bristol, and he had been for several years clerk to the Clevedon local Board. He took an active part in all sohemes for the improvement of the town, and he was for many years churchwarden of Clevedon Parish.
MR. TASWELL THOMPSON. Mr, Tassell Thompson, solicitor, late of Salters' Hall, died at Southampton on the 18th nit. in his eighty-first year. Mr. Thompson was the youngest son of Mr. Ebenemr Thompson, and was born in 1802. He was admitted a solicitor about the year 1324, and practi-ed for about fifty years at 8, Salter*' Hall-court, Cannon-street. He was formerly in partnership with Mr. William Yentris Field (now a judge of the Queen's Bench Division) and with Mr. George Debenbam. H s practice was a large and important one, and his firm have been for maoy years solicitors to the New River Company. Mr. Thompson was also for a long time clerk to the S liters' Company. Ht retired from practice about e'ght years ago, and had since been resident at Southampton.
MR. EDWARD BILLETT JENNINGS.
Mr. Edward Billett Jenning", solicitor (the head of the firm of Jennings, Son, & Burtou), of 17, Gracechurch-street, and Burton-upon-Tren', died at Burton on the Cth in-t. Mr. Jenninga was born in 1830. He was admitted a solicitor in 1852, and he had been for many years in partnership at Hurt m11 pen-Trent with his son, Mr. Francis James Jennings (who was admitted a solicitor in 1880), and with Mr. George Burton, the firm having also a London office. He was a notary public, and perpetual commissioner for London, Westminster, Middlesex, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire.
MR. HERBERT BROOM, LL.D.
Mr. Herbert Broom, barrister, LL.D.i died at The Priory, Orpington, Kent on the 2nd Inst. He was the son of Mr. Herbert Broom, of Kidderminster He was born in 1815, and was educated at Trinity Coil-go, Cambridge, *he're he graduated as a wrangler in 1837. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1840, and was formerly a member of the Home Circnit. He is best known to the profession as having hold for very many years the post of Reader in Common Law at the Inner Temple. His work on "Legal Maxims" has a very wide circulation, having long been an established text-book for students. He was also the author of "Commentaries on the Common Law." Mr. Broom was married to a daughter of the late Mr. John Thomson, of Halifax.
MR. JOHN CLEAVE.
Mr. John Cleave, solicitor, of Hereford, who was one of the oldest solicitors in England, died at Hereford, on tho 7th ins!., in his ninetyfirst year. Mr. Cleave was born in 1792. He was educated at Tiverton School, and he was articled to the late Mr. Heory Karflake, of Regentstreet. He was admitted a solicitor in 1813. He was associated with the firm of Bissett & Woollaston, of Hereford, first as a clerk and then as a partner, but for many years he had carried on business alone. He had a large and important practice in Hereford and the surrounding district. He was a perpetual commissioner for Herefordshire, and in 1836 he was appointed, by the late Lord Somers, Lord-Lieutenant of Herefordshire, to be clerk of the peace for that county, and he held that office until his death. He was also clerk to the lieutenancy for that county. He was formerly a member of the Hereford Town Counoil, and in 1835 he was mayor of the oity. Mr. Cleave was buried at the Hereford Cemetery 03 the 11th inst.
MR. WILLIAM JONES.
Mr. William Jonep, solicitor, late of 7, Crosby-square, died at Glandwyr, Dolgelley, on the 8th ult, in his ninetieth year. Mr. Jones was born in 1792. He was admitted a solicitor about the year 1814, and he was Tor over fifty years in practice at 7, Crosby-square. He had a good private business, and he was for a long period vestry clerk of the piri-h of St. Helen, BishopsKate. For several years he sat in the Court of Common Council, and be was subsequently deputy of Bishopsgate Ward. He was one of the ol dest members of the Court of Assistants of the Turners' Company, of which body he was master in 1861. Mr. Jones finally retired from practioe about ten years ago. His ion, Mr. William Halse Gatty Jones was admitted a solicitor in 1846.
MR. WILLIAM HEWETT MANLEY.
Mr. William Hewett Manley, solicitor, died at Bridport, on the 9th inst. after a somewhat long ilines'. Mr. Manley was born in 1828. Ho was admitted a solicitor in 1850, and he had a very large practice at Bridport. He had been for many years registrar of the Bridport County Court (Circuit No. 45), and he was formerly a town councillor, in which capacity he took a warm interest in all municipal business. Mr. Manley was well known for a long time as the leading Conservative agent at Bridport. His deUh was caused by cancer of the tongue, and his last illness was an extremely painful oue.
Mr. Jambs Frederick Symokds, solicitor, of Hereford, has been appointed by Lord Bateman, Lord-Lieutenant of Herefordshire, to be Clerk of the Peace for that connty, in succession to the late Mr. John Cleave. Mr. Symonds is a magistrate for the city of Hereford. He was admitted a solicitor in 1841, and he is also clerk to the lieutenancy for Herefordshire.
Mr. Thomas Joyce, solicitor, of Minebead and Durjster, has been appointed Clerk to the Magistrates for the Williton Division of Somersetshire. Mr. Joyce was admitted a solicitor in 1877.
Mr. Edward Paul Toller, solicitor, of Kettering and Uppingham, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Su; rjroe Court of Judicature.
Mr. William Dawes, solicitor, clerk of the peace for the borough of Rye, has been elected Clerk to the Rye Harbour Commissioners, in succession to Mr George Slade Butler, deceased.
Mr. Thomas Ffooks, solicitor, of Sherborne, has been elected President of the new Dorsetshire Law Society. Mr. Ffooks was admitted a solicitor in 1841. He is clerk of the peace and clerk to the lieutenancy for Dorsetshire.
Mr. Henrt John Gidney, solicitor, late of 46, Finsbury-circus, has been (lected Clerk to the AUsliam Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sinitary Authority, and Superintendent Registrar for the district. Mr. Gidney was admitted a solicitoi in 1878.
Mr. Charles Brown Smith, solicitor (of the firm of Thome, Smith, & Theme), ot Wolverhampton, has been appointed solicitor to the Wolverhampton School Board, in succession to Mr. Henry Underbill, deceased. Mr. Smith was admitted a solicitor in 1866.
Mr. Samuel Lewis, barrister, has been appointed a Member of the I sgislative Counoil of tbe Colony of Sierra Leone. Mr. Lewis, was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1871.
WINDING-UP NOTICES. Joint Stock Companies. Limited Is- Chancery. Alts Bank Coil And Cannel Company, Limited.—Creditors are required, on or
before June 12, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts
or claims, to Robert Cockburn Millar. 32, India st, Edinburgh. June 22 at 12 is
appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims Dehwf.it Deo Pannol Gwyn Coppee And Lead Mining Company, Limited.—Petition
for winding up, presented May 11, directed to be beard before Bacon, V.C., on May
20. Hodding, Chancery lane, solicitor for the petitioners Gebman Date Coffee Company, Limited.—Creditors are required, on or before June
29, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims,
to Horace Woodburn Kirby, 4, Coleman st. July 20 at 12 is appointed for hearing
and adjudicating upon the debts and claims Keighley Hebald Newspaper Company, Limited.—Chitty, J., has fixed May 22 at 12,
at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator Standabd Credit Company, Limited.—By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated May 5.
it was ordered that the company be wound up. Solomon, Finsbury pavement,
solicitor for the petitioner
[Gazette, May 12. ]
Stbahan And Company, Limited.—Chitty, J., has fixed May 21 at 11, at his chambers,
for the appointment of an official liquidator
[Gazette, May 16.]
Unlimited In Chancery. Potteries, Shrewsbury, And North Wales Railway Company.—Fry, J., has fixed May 26 at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator
[Gazette, May 16.J
Fbiendly Societies Dissolved.
Mitcheldsan Benefit Society, George Hotel, Mitcheldean, Gloucester. May 5
[Gazette, May 12 ]
[Gazette, May 16.J
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOF.
Cullifoed, Thomas, Wools-ton. Southampton, Hotel Keeper. May 31. Barford r
Culliford, Fry, J. Paris, Southampton Dallisson, John, Warwick pi, St Luke. June 8. Dallisson v Howitt, Hall, Y.C.
Lewis and Sons, Wilmington sq Farley, Jane, Ramsgate. May 30. Coveney v Sondes, Chitty, J. Gray, Lndgate hill Forster, Thomas, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Solicitor. May 20. Brownlow v Forster,
Chitty, J. Cotton, St Martin's-le-grand Hollier, Alice, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, Hotel Proprietor. May 18. Coles v Wheeler,
Chitty, J. Blake, Newport Jones, John, Caron, Cardigan, Gent. June 1. Jones v Lewis, Bacon, V.C. Lloyd,
Mabewice, Hark, Fernhead rd, Harrow rd, Esq. May 23. Ives v Markwick, Chitty, J. Christmas, Walbrook
[Gazette, May 2.J
Baker, George, Cranbourn st, Leicester sq, Dealer in Fine Arts. June 6. Baker v Baker, Hall, V.C. Yarde and Loader, Raymond bldgs. Gray's inn
Babbow, Maby, Grange rd, Bermondsey. June 19. Poole v Barrow, Hall, V.C. Mote, Walbrook
Bibchall, Ellen, Swansea. June 17. Garland v Bath, Fry, J. Budd, Austin Friars Camp, Edward, Blenheim Bt, Oxford Bt, Carman. June 2. Camp v Camp, Chitty, J.
Powell, Old Burlington st Clcbb, William, Colchester, Hatter. June 15. C alter mole v Clubb, Hall, V.C. Wittey,
Collins, Sarah Ann, Chippenham ten-ace, Paddington. June 2. Lloyd v Head,
Bacon, V.C. Lamb, Old Jewry Faithfcll, Margaret, Brighton, and George Fbedebick Pbince Sutton, Coleman
st. June 2. Hard wick v Sutton, Chitty, J. Etherington, Lincoln's inn fields Hawkins, Charles, Brighton, Photographic Artist. May 23. Hawkins v Hawkins,
Hall, V.C. Woods and Dempster, Brighton Ltall, John, Les Terres, Guernsey, Esq. May 30. Lyall v Fraser, Cbitty, J. Sum
inerhays, Gresham House, Old Broad st Neale, Philip, Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Gentleman. May 27. Ncale v Deadman, Bacon,
V.C. Barnen, Lambourn Redfbbn, William, Findern, Derby, Gentleman. May 20. Redfern v Moore, Hall,
V.C. Argyle, jun, Tamworth Ryder, Henry Robert, Hove, Devon, Shipwright, and Elizabeth Ryder. May 24.
Ryder v. Avent, Hall, V.C. Wilson, Plymouth
[Gazette. May 5.]
Fleming, Abthub Cecil, Berwick st, Pimlico, Gentleman. June 6. Fleming v Mac
donald, Chitty, J. Simpson, Tunbndge Wells Gethin, William, Frantwell, Shrewsbury, Builder. May 26, Gethin v Thomas, Hall,
V.C. Nutsey, Shrewsbury Slocombe, William, St John's villas, Upper Holloway, Gentleman. June 1. Deacon
r Harbison, Bacon, V.C. Sandeman, Northampton sq, Clerkenwell Hargreave, John, Barnsley, York, Master of the Grammar School. June 1. Har
greave v Stanley, Bacon, V.C. Bond, Barnsley King, William, Bexley, Kent, Baker. June 7. King viKing, Chitty, J. Haywood,
Lloyd, Mary Jans. Bath. May 27. Hodgens v Wilton. Bacon, V.C. Adams, Lincoln's
Moore, Fielding, Leicester, Contractor. June 12. Moore v Hallam, Fry, J. Place,
Piggin, William, Hose, Leicester, Gentleman. June 15. Swift v Smith, Hall, V.C.
Latham and New, Melton Mowbray Royston, Thomas, Howdon, York, Farmer. June 3. Green v Cogan, Chitty, J.
[Gazette, May 9.]
Asdbew, Joski-h, Germoe, Cornwall. June 9. Andrew v Nicholls, Chitty, J. Tyacke, Helston
Clabke, Fanny, Stony Stratford, Buckingham. June 9. Sodding v Revill, Chitty, J.
Parrott, Stony Stratford Clabke. William, Stony Stratford, Buckingham, Innkeeper. June 9. Sedding v
Revill, Chitty, J. Parrott, Stony Stratford Cummins, John, Leeds, Innkeeper. June 12. Lumb v Ouburn, Fry, J, Brailhwaite,