« PreviousContinue »
employed the defendant Dyer as his solicitor in a former action against the option in the matt r. He must take the affidavit, which was not a prelimin. defendant company, in which the company set up a counter-olaim. The ary to the registration, but part of tha registration itself. The question was result of this action was that, under Dyer's advice, the plaintiff accepted whether the affi iavit in this case was in compliance with the Act. The Act some debentures of the company in discharge of his claim against them. The said “due execution and attestation." His lordship did not think it plaintiff subsequently discharged Dyer as his solicitor, and afterwards brought mattered whether the word “du?" was there or not, for no mode of execa. a second action against the company to enforce his debentures, in which lion was pointed out in the Act. Th: wori “due," therefore, could not action the company intended to set up their former counter-claim, and em- affect the ineaning of the word "execution," and, consequently, could not ployed Dyer as their solicitor. The plaintiff alleged that, in acting for him, aff ct the meaning of the word " attestation.” The word “due" might, Dyer had acquired confidential information, the disclosure of which would therefore, be thrown out of consideration. What, then, did "attestation " seriously prejudice the plaintiff in bis action to enforce his debentures, and he mean? It was well uaderstood. The ordinary form of attestation of a deed therefore claimed an injunction restraining the employment of Dyer, and the was "signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of" the attesting witnes!. communication to the company of any information acquired by him when That was what "attestation" meant. The thing must be done in the acting for the plaintiff. Hall, V.C., granted an injunction (ante, pp. 379, 386), presence of the man who in future would be able to testify that it was done. restraining the company from employing Dyer as their solicitor. He held that There was no attestation unless the thing was done in the presence of the the power of the court to restrain a solicitor from acting against a former attesting witness. The affi davit in the present case did not satisfy this test ; client was not confined to cases where the solicitor had discharged himself, it was consistent with it that the solicitor might have come in half an hour after but that it extended to cases in which the solicitor had been discharged by the execution of the deed. It was not safficient that the attestation clause the client. In the Court of Appeal, before the appeal had been heard out, the should state that the solicitor had attested the execution; the Act required court (JESSEL, M. R., and Lindley, L.J.) suggested an arrangement between an affidavit of this, and here there was no affidavit that he had attested, or the parties, to which they assented, so that no judgment was delivered. But that he was present when the deed was execated, or of anything equivalent JESSEL, M. R., during the argument, intimated an opinion that the solicitor to thai. His lordship quite agreed that, if this was the trial of an action, the could not be restrained from acting against his former client in a case in which court would say that the evidence that the solicitor had attested could not ba the client had discharged him without any misconduct on his part. Tbeobjected to, and would infer that no one would have had the courage to make client could not deprive the solicitor of the means of earning his livelihood. such an affidavit if the solicitor had not been present. But that argument The jurisdiction was founded on breach of trust, and in no case could the only came to this—that if there were no Act of Parliament, you might iofer solicitor be allowed to communicate to the client's adversary information which that that had been done which the affidavit did not say was done. And his he had acquired while he was acting for the client. And Jessel, M.R., said lordsbip did not see the answer to the argument that you could not indict a that the Vice-Chancellor's order had gone further than any of the previous man for perjury because you chose to draw a wrong inference from what he decisions, even those in the Irish court. His lordship also expressed an had said. If the Act required a certain safeguard it could not be dispensed opinion that the proper course in granting such an injunction was to restrain with, It appeared to his lordship, though he came to the conclusion the solicitor from acting for the new client, not to restrain the new client from reluctantly, that the affidavit was not suficient, and the rule must be disemploying bin.-SOLICITORS, Torr & Co. ; Meredith, Roberts, f: Mills. charged, with costs. LINDLEY, L.J., said that it was essential to "attesta.
tion" that the attesting witness should be present and have the opportunity
of observing what was done. The affidavit must, therefore, show that the BILL OF SALE-REGISTRATION-AFFIDAVIT OF EXECUTION AND ATTESTA. attesting witness way present. The affidavit here did not show this. The TION-Bills of SALE Act, 1878, 88. 8, 10.-Ia a case of Ford : Kettle, objection, but the words of the Art must be followed. —SOLICITORS, F. R.
court could not strain the words of the Act. This was a wretched technical struction of section 10 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878. Section 8 of the Act Wright; Ford g Ford. provides that every bill of sale shall be duly attested and registered under the Act, otherwise it shall be deemed fraudulent and void as against (inter SHERIFF-Fr. FA.— WRONGPUL SEIZURE-ACTION BY OWNER OF GOOD3alia) execution creditors of the grantor, and, by section 10, " A bill of sale INTERPLEADER-Costs. In a case of Hilliard v. Hanson, before the Court of shall be attested and registered under this Act in the following manner:(1) The execution of every bill of sale shall be attested by a solicitor of the against a sheriff by the owner of goods which the sheriff had seized under a writ
Appeal on the 26th ult., a question arose as to the costs of an action brought Supreme Court, and the attestation sball state that before the execution of of fi. fa., issued against another person. The writ was issued agaiost the goods the bill of sale the effect thereof has been explained to the grantor by the of a son who lived in the house of his father. The son had no goods there, attesting solicitor; (2) such bill, : · and also a true copy of such bill, except some wearing apparel. The sheria's officer seized this, and also the and of every attestation of the execution of such bill of sale, together with goods of the father. The father gave a verbal notice to the officer that the an affidavit of the time of such bill of sale being made or given, and of its due goods seized (other than the wearing apparel) were his property, and not the execution and attestation
shall be presented to, and the said copy son's. The sheriff then took out an interpleader summons, but before this samand affidavit shall be filed with, the registrar within seven clear days after
mons could be heard the father commenced an action against the sheriff alone, the making or giving of such bill of sale.".. In the present case a bill of sale and applied to H:11, V.C., for an injunction to restrain the sheriff from remainof stock-in-trade and furniture was, on the 19th of December, executed by ing in possession of the plaintiff's goods, and from removing or selling them. one Hooper in favour of the plaintiff to secure £500. The execution was Hall
, V.C., granted the injunction. The sheriff appealed, and the Court of attested by two witnesses, one of whom was a solicitor and the other was Appeal ordered the sheriff' to withdraw, on the terms of £48 being paid into a solioitor's clerk. As regards the solicitor the attestation clause stated
court to answer the execution, and the further hearing of the appeal was that the deed bad been “signed, sealed, and delivered by. Hooper "in my adjoarned. When the appeal came on again it was stated that, on the hearpresenoe, the effect hereof having been first explained to him by me.” The ing of the interpleader summons, the execution creditor had admitted that bill of sale was taken to the office of the Queen's Bench Division for the goods which had been seized, with the exception of the wearing apparel, registration on the 20th of December, the affidavit required by section 10 being made by the clerk. It stated that a paper annexed thereto was a the costs. JESSEL, M.R., said that the case was of considerable importance
were the property of the father. The only question then remaining was as to true copy of the bill of sale, and of every attestation of the execution with regard to the procedure under executions. The execution creditor had thereof; that the deponent was present and saw Hooper duly execute the directed the sheriff to seize all the goods in the father's house, and the sheriff bill of sale, and that the same was made originally by him on the 19th of seized them accordingly. There was no ground for alleging that there had December, 1881; that the names or signatures subscribed as the attesting been any abuse of the powers of the sheriff or any misconduct on his part or witnesses to the bill of sale were respectively in the proper handwritings of that of his officers. There was no reason why, on the interpleader summons, Burbidge (the solicitor) and the deponent, Burbidge being a solicitor of the if no action had been brought, the judge should not make the ordinary order Supreme Court; and that before the execution of the bill of sale the effect that no action should be brought against the sheriff. But, the action having thereof was explained by Barbidge to Huoper. On the 4th of January, been commenced, the form of the order would be to stay the proceedings in it. 1882, the goods comprised in the bill of sale was seized under an execution on That, however, would not dispose of the costs. His lordship thought that the bebalf of the defendants, who were creditors of Hooper. The plaintiff claimed ViceChancellor ought not to have turned the sheriff out of possession without the goods under the bill of sale, and the sberiff took out an interpleader sun. hearing the execution creditor, who ought either to have been made a party
An issue was directed to try whether the plaintiff or the defendants to the action or to have been served with notice of it. It was he who was were entitled to the goods. It was objected by the defendants that the affi- really disputing the title to the goods. The order was, however, right in fact, davit was not sufficient within section 10, and that, consequently, the bill of as it turned out that the goods were the goods of the father, and the sheriff sale had not been duly registered, and was void as against them. The issue was really a trespasser. His lordsbip did not see how the sheriff could get any was tried before Field, J., and a verdict was found for the defendants. The costs. If there were no interpleader he would have to pay costs, as having plaintiff applied for a new trial, on the ground that the judge had misdirected
been in the wrong throughout. But as the sheriff had not acted improperly, the jury, but the application was refused by a divisional court. The Court his lordship did not see why he should be deprived of the protection he would of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and Brett and Cotton, L.JJ.) granted a otherwise have had, merely becanse the owner of the goods had commenced rule nisi for a new trial, and the rule now on for argument. his action before the interpleader summons. The court ought to show its disJESSEL, M.R., said that he much regretted the decision at which he felt approval of the plaintiff's conduct in bringiug the action prematurely by compelled to arrive. He was always exceedingly loth to allow a purely giving him no costs. It could not go further than that. The injunction would technical objection to prevail. At the same time a judge must not allow be dissolved, but no costs of the motion would be given in either court. bard cases to make bad law. When you had an Act which was intended Lindley, L.J., said that the action was vexatious and premature. The right to be very strict, and you found on the fair interpretation of it tbat a
course would have been to wait to see the result of the interpleader.-SOLICIcondition which it required for insuring the validity of a bill of sale had not TORS, W. R. A. Kime; W. Maynard. been complied with, the court was not at liberty to depart from the fair meaning of the Act. The form of attestation required by section 8 was not given in the Act, but its substance was given in section 10, which said that Power—CONSTRUCTION-FRAUDULENT EXERCISE-PORTIONS FOR CHILD. a copy of the bill of sale and of the attestation, tegether with an affidavit of REN—POWER TO CHARGE ON LAND-VESTING--RAISABILITY_Death of (inter alia) the “ due execution and attestation" of the bill of sale, were to
APPOINTEE BEFORE PERIOD FOR RAISING.-On (the 19th ult., the Court of be filed with the registrar. That was the registration. The registrar had no Appeal reversed the decision of Kay, J., in the case of Henty v. Irey (30
W. R. 317, L. R. 19 Ch. D. 492). The questions were whether a p?wer absence of evidence of fraud the court could not control his choice as to that, given to a tenant for life under a settlement of real estate to charge portions or as to the tiine of vesting of the land. The next question w.us whether the for younger children on the estate had been validly exer:ised, and, if it had, appointment was invalid by reason of its being a fraud on the power. By a whether, under the circumstances, some of the portions were raisable. The "fraud” his lordship understood an abuse of the power, or, in other words, tenant for life had power, ia case he should have three or more children, an exercise of it for some purpose different from that for which it was conother than an eldest or only son for the time beiog entitled under the limitt. ferred. In the present case there was no evidence of any fraud or abuse, a part tions of the settlement to an estate in tail male in remaioder expectant on his from the documents and the state of the appoiator's family, and from these father's death, to charge the estates, by deed or will, with the sum of materials alone his lordship could not come to the conclusion that the power £10,000 for the portions of such three or more children. By a deed, dated the had been exercised otherwise than bona fide for the benefit of the children who 17th of March, 1828, the father charged the estate with the raising and pay. were its proper objects. Fraud or improper motives ought not to be premeat of £10,000 for the portion or portions of bis three infant daughters sumed ; they must be proved. The third question was whether, assuming the (the only children he then had) to be a vested interest in them respectively appointment to be valid, the portions of the two children who died under immediately on the execution of the deed, and to be paid and payable at such twenty-one ever became raisable. There certainly were many cases in the booke, times and in such proportions as the father should by deed or will appoint, and expressions both in judgments and in writings of authors of celebrity, and, in default of appointment, to be paid to such children respectively, sbare which tended to show that, where portions for children are charged on real and share alike, at twenty.one, or on marriage, which should first happen, if estate, and the children die in infancy (and if diughters unm irried), bafore it should happen after the father's death, but, if it should happen in his life. the time for raising the portions has arrived, the portions not being required time, then the portions should be postponed until after his death, unless he are not raisable, and sink into the inheritance for th: benefit of the owners should consent to their being raised in his lifetime. This deed also contained of the land on which they were charged. The language of Lord Thurlow in a power for the father to vary or absolutely revoke the appointments therein Lord Hinchinbroke v. Seymour, as reported in 1 B. C. C. 394, was in favoue contained and to niake other appointments. By a deed dated the 10th of of this view, and other language to the same effect was to be fouod in other July, 1832 (indorsed on the last deed) the father charged the estates with the cases collected in Edgeworth v Edgeworth. The judgment of Kıy, J., in the payment of $10,000 for the portions of his three daughters, to be a vested present case was evidently influenced by these decisions and expressions of interest in them respectively immediately on the execution of the deed, and to opinion, and it became important to examine the subject, and to a certain the be paid to them as mentioned in the deed of the 17th of March, 1828. The grounds and the limits of the suppose i doctrine. An examination of the eldest daughter afterwards married. The other two died, one aged fifteen, in authorities would show that the question undor consideration was intimately the year 1836, the other, aged eighteen, in the year 1845. In coosequence of their connec:ed with the question of construction, and that there was considerable deaths, their father, as their next-of-kin, became entitled to their interest in danger of confusion and error if they were not examined separately. His tbe £10,000. He never had any other children. On the 30th of August, lordship then referred to a number of the older authorities, in which he said 1851, he executed a deed by which he appointed that £5,000, part of the that the reason why a portion charged on land was held not to be rais able £10,000, should be raised and paid, immediately after his death, to the married was, not that it was not wanted, but that it had not vested before the death of daughter for her separate use. On the 22nd of November, 1851, a deed was the person entitled to it. In other cases about the same date, in wbich executed, to wbich the father and the daughter and her husband were parties, portions charged on land were held to have vested, the portions were held to by which in order to remove any doubt whether, by reason of the absence of be raisable, although in some of them the persons entitled to the portions had a botchpot clause from the former deed, she was not entitled to sbara in died too young to require the money. Having carafally examined all the the £5,000, the remainder of the £10,000 which was upappointed, she and older anthorities bearing on the subject, his lordship could find nothing, unless her husband joined with the father in assigning the unappointed £5,000 to it was \Lord Hinchinbroke v. Seymour, which warranted the notion that a two trustees, on trust absolutely for the father, as part of his personal estate, portion, charged on land and vested, was not to be raised if the person entitled ia case he should survive his wife. This event happened. On the 23rd of to it died before he might want it. His lordship then referred to four cases, August, 1875, the father, in consideration of £3,000 paid to him by the which he said were the most important of the modern decisions-viz., Edgeplaintiff, assigned to the plaintiff the moiety of the £10,000 to which he was worth v. Edgeworth; Keily v. Keily (2 D. & W. 38); Remnant v. Hood (2 ectitled under the above deeds. And by the deed of assignment be entered D. F. & J. 396); Davies v. Huguenin (1 H. & M. 730). His lordship said that into an absolute covenant with the plaintiff for quiet enjoyment. The father there was, no doubt, considerable difficulty in reconciling all the anthoritiies died on the ilth of September, 1879. This action was brought by the pur- on the question when a portion charged on land vested, and when it did not, chaser, claiming to have the £5,000 which had been assigned to him raised and the court had often struggled, even against the words of an instrument, out of the estate, and, in the alternative, if the court should be of opinion in order to avoid coming to the conclusion that a portion charged on land in that it was not raisable, damages against the estate of the father for breach favour of a child vested before that child attained twenty-one or married. of covenant. Kay, J., held that on the deaths of the two daughters their This was the true explanation of the observations in Edgeworth v. Edgeworth, interests in the £10,000 fell into the estate and became not raisable, and that, Remnant v. Hood, and Davies v. Huguenin. But, when onca the conclusion consequently, the plaintiff had no title to any part of the appointed fund. was arrived at that the portion was vested, there was no conflict of authority But his lordship beld that the plaiotiff was entitled to prove against the with respect to the right to have it raised. In the present case the period of estate of the father for £3,000, the amount of his purchase-money, with vesting was plainly fixed, and there was no difficulty on that point, if the interest thereon. His lordship treated the case of Lord Hinchinbroke v. Seymour appointment was authorized by the power, which, for the reasons already (1 B. C. C. 394) as an authority for the proposition that a portion charged stated, his lordship held that it was. With respect to Lord Hinchinbroke v. on real estate is not raisable if the child to whom it is appointed dies before the Seymour, his lordship was unable to reconcile it with the other authorities, period fixed for raising it, even though the portion has become vested under except on one of two suppositions-viz, either that the appointment was not the terms of the appointment. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and authorized by the power, if properly construed, or that the appointment was a LINDLEY and HOLKER, L.JJ.) reversed the decision. JESSEL, M, R., distinct frand on the power. Bý reason of the well-known illness of the had, during the argument, sent for the record of Lord Hinchinbroke v. Seymour, appointee, Lord Eldon, ia 11 Ves. 479, and 1 Bligb, 397, understood the case from which it appeared that Brown's report was inaccurate in statement, and to have proceeded on the latter ground ; so apparently did Lord St. Leonards his lordship showed, by quoting Lord Eldon's remarks in McQueen v. (4 D. & W. 55). Brown, however, did not mention this, nor did he notice Farquhar (11 Vesoy, 479), and in the case of the Queensberry Leases (i Bligh, the important fact that there was a provision for the daughter and her 397), that there were other omissions, and that the ground upon which Lord maintenance in default of appointment, which might materially affect the Tburlow proceeded had probably been misunderstood. The true ground was constraction of the power. This fact was surmised by, although not known that the power in that case bad, in fact, been fraudulently exercised. The to, Mr. Chance, who had made some valuable comments on the case in his father there bad exercised the power by appointing to a daughter who was excellent work on Powers (vol. 1, p. 463, et seq.). The decision in that case " at death's door in a consumption," as Lord Eldon said, in order that he might was plainly correct, though, owing to the way in which it was reported, its take out administration on her death, and obtain the appointed property for grounds had been misunderstood on some occasions. His lordship said that, himself. On the whole, his lordship thought there was a balance of judicial from a careful examination of all the authorities which he had examined, opinion in favour of the view that Lord Thurlow bad, in fact, based his judg. he had arrived at the following results :-(!) That powers to appoint ment on the fraudulent exercise of the power, Lord Eldon and Lord St. portions charged on land ought, if their language was doubtful, to be Leopards favoured that view, wbile Lord Hatherley, in Lady Wellesley v. construed so as not to authorizə appointments vesting those portions Lord Mornington (1 Jur. N. S. 1202), and Sir Anthony Hart, in Edgeworth in the appointees before they wanted them-i.e., before they attained v. Edgworth (1 Beatty, 334), were against it. Lord Eldon would probably twenty-one, or (if daughters) married. (2) That when the language have learnt the facts of the case in his own practice. The case was decided in of the power was clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to it. (3) 1.784, at which time there was very few counsel practising in the Court of That when, upon the true construction of the power and the appointment, Chancery. The result was that Lord Hinchinbrike v. Seymour was not an the portion had not vested in the lifetime of the appointee, the portion was not authority for the supposed rule of law. In his lordship’s opinion the power raisable, but sank into the inheritance. (4) That when, upon the true conwas well exercised in this case. There was no evidence that the father struction of both instruments, the portion had vested in the appoiatee, it was thought his children would die when he appointed to them, and bis lordship was raisable, eveu although the appointee died under twenty-one, or (if a daughter) shocked at such a suggestion. It was the appointment of 1832, not that of upmarried. (5) That appointments vesting portions charged on land in 1828, which must be considered, and it was not difficult to see that the mode children of tender years, who died soon afterwards, were looked on with of vesting was directed in order to benefit the children. LINDLEY, L.J., was of suspicion, and very little additional evidence of improper motive or object opinion that, on the true construction of the power, the appointment was would induce the court to set aside the appointment, or treat it as invalid, warranted by it. The power authorized an appointment by deed, revocable but that without some additional evidence the court could not do so. Apply. or irrevocable, or will, and it expressly authorized the donee to exercise ing these principles to the present case, his lordship was of opinion that the his own judgment, not only as to the time when the appointed fund should appointment was valid, and that the decision of Kay, J., must be revers :d. be made to rest, but also as to the time when it should be made payable. It SOLICITORS, Hadden, Woodward, f. McLeod; Morice f Toller ; Warry, Robins, would not ba right to construe the power more restrictively than its objects & Co. and its words required, especially having regard to the fact that there was no provision for the maintenance of the children in default of appointment. The PRACTICE-LIMITED COMPANY-CREDITOR'S PETITION TO WIND UP-DEBT appointor had the choice whether he would appoint by deed or will, and in the DUE FROM PROMOTERS — DISMISSAL OF PETITION — Costs OF Persons APPEARING AND OPPOSING-CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDINGS.- In the case of consideration for every buman being who came in contact with him; if these In re The Capital Fire Insurance Association (Limited), before Chitty, J., on things are—as they are-great qualities of a judge, these great qualities he the 24th ult., a petition for the winding up of the company was presented by bad in the largest and amplest measure. We may regret; we may grieve a creditor whore debt in support of the petition consisted of a claim for that the exercise of these great powers has been cut short by a power which advertising the company, and the question raised was whether the debt was cannot be resisted ; but he has left behind him an unstained reputation ; be the debt of the company or of its promoters. Chitty, J., said that a trades. has left behind him a memory which will live and be cherisbed by us as 190g man who desired to deal in a strictly business-like way with a company as life is spared to us ; and, if we mourn, as we all do, his loss—it is at least sbould only execute orders on the receipt of a communication from the left to us, as best we may, to strive to imitate bis virtues. authorized band of the company-namely, from its board of directors, by its The ATTORNEY-General (the Solicitor-General and the whole of the proper officer, such as the secretary to the company. It was, however, no members of the bar present rising with him) said :~My Lord Chief doubt usual for advertisement agents to accept orders from promoters. It Justice has referred to the position which Sir John Holker occupied osten happened that promoters gave orders and pledged their individual credit on the bench ; but he had 80 recently lest us that we feel as if in the expectation of being relieved from tbe liability thus incurred when the he had fallen out from our ranks and lain himself down and gone company was founded, and it was apparent in such a case tbat the advertise. to his rest. He had been among us in his familiar presence in the ment agent could only enforce payment by proceeding agaiast the promoters every day work of our professional life so long and so constantly that we individually, and not by proceeding against the company after it was founded. found it difficult to realize the fact that he was no longer one of us. During In the present case he was of opinion that the petitioner looked to the pro. that time, while on the road to high success, leaving many bebiod him and moters and not to the company for payment. A great mistake was often passing many by, he had the rare good fortune never to raise one feeling of made by tradesmen dealing with promoters, for they thought that they would envy or enmity in any man's breast. He never had, he never could bave bad, be entitled to have the benefit of any agreement between the promoters and one man to judge him harshly, one man who grudged him his success. The the company. That was not so. The petition must be dismissed, with costs. reason was that in all the progress of that success he never would make use of His lordship beld also, with reference to the costs to be paid by the petitioner, any factitiou3, any adventitious means, and by the mere strength of his arm that there must be one set for the company opposing, another set for share and the truth and temper of bis blade, he worked his way towards the high bolders appearing and opposing, and a third set for creditors appearing and position he attained. " What he was, all who were associatad with him, opposing. - SOLICITORS, Brandons ; Halse, Trustram, & Co. ; Beall; Stone whether as opponents or as colleagues, whether as contemporaries or juniors, can ham & Co.; Greenfiell & Abbott.
well bear witness. He never spoke one hard, one hasty word, but always bore himself with kindness and consideration to every one who came in contact with hin. My lord has truly said how great an example he has set to every advocate, for while zealons for his clients, he was always just towards his
opponents. The Lord Chief Justice bas said what all who knew Sir Joba THE LATE LORD JUSTICE HOLKER. Holker would have wished to have expressed- no success ever spoilt him, and
to the last he was what he was at first-ubaffected, simple-minded, kindly, On Friday week, in the Court of Appeal at Westminster, LORD COLERIDGE, on
and considerate. But my lord has said these things, and I do but echo his taking his seat, said:-I feel that being present here with you to-day, I am words. One thing only we can do, and that is—while cherishing the memory rather here for the purpose of inviting you to express your respect for the of a friend who is gone, and while strewing these few flowers upon his grave, character of bim whom we have lost-your estimate of his great powers and to draw from his example the knowledge that plain, straightfornard, honest your sorrow for his loss-than to express my own. Not--as I am sure I conduct oan win much of success ani the commendation and admiration of the need hardly say—that I do not feel corrow, deep and true, but that you, good and the just among the English public. especially the Solicitor-General and some others whom I see here, know him much better than I did, and your opportunities of judging of his character and powers were far larger than the chances of the profession brought to my sbare. Yet, as I am here, perhaps this very circumstance is not without its value,
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. because it enables ma to give independent and peculiar testimony to the quickness and the greatness of bis professional success. For I myself left the bar late in 1873, and at that time Sir John Holker had hardly had opportunities
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. of being heard in the House, and was little known in the courts in London,
HoxoURS EXAMINATION, though I knew that at that time he was very eminent on his own circuit. But now, after the lapse of scarcely more than eight years, we are met
April, 1882. together to lament over the loss of a man who, in the meanwhile, had filled, At the examination for bonours of candidates for admission on the roll of with universal applause, the offices of Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, solicitors of the Supreme Court, the examination committee recommended and who, at the time of his death, stood, by universal consent, in the very first the following gentlemen as being entitled to honorary distinotion :rank of the profession, both as an advocate and as a lawyer. Looking back over my own recollections, I cannot call to mind another instance of profes.
First Class, sional success at once so rapid and so enduring. And you and I know In the opinion of the committee the standard attained by the candidates perfectly well that the fame he won was fairly won, and that he well deserved does not jastify the iesve of any first-class list. to win it. For you and I know the profession to which we all belong, and if it judges, as does judge, generously, it almost always judges justly,
Second Class. and if it agrees, as in the case of Sir J. Holker, unanimously to respect and
[In Alphabetioal order.] admire, it is because he was known to be worthy of its admiration and
George Francis Colborne, B.A., who served his clerkship to Mr. John respect. But it is not only-nor, perhaps, chiefly-the great advocate and Edward Ward, and to Mr. Thomas Colborne, of Newport, Monmouth. the sound lawyer whose loss we lament to.day ; it is the friend, the com. Edgar Ernest Deane, wbo served his clerkship to Mr. Jobo Arthur Deade, pavion, the simple, genial man, whose memory will live as long as any of us
of Batley, and to Samuel Robinson, of Bradford. live, and who bas left bebind him a void which cannot adequately be filled, Alfred Otho Harnett, who served his clerkship to Mr. Webster Batcher, I myself know some--very likely sime of these I address know many more- of London. acts of generous, almost parental kindness, done by him-simply, unpre- John William Hudson, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Walton tendingly, with no ostentation, without effort, without display, and, so far as Berry, of Bradford, he was concerned, apparently almost as a matter of course. And I do believe
Thomas Ormandy Jackson, who served ris olerkship to Mr. Stephen Hart that there never beat a biodlier heart in any human breast. I do believe that Jackson, of Ulversion. a truer and manlier nature than Sir John Holker's never existed among men. Joseph Patriok McKenna, who served his clerkship to Mr. Alfred Clement He is gone from us, and we who are left behind must recollect what he was.
Kent, of Liverpool. No success ever spoilt him, no elevation ever puffed him up; he remained the
John Tatham Ware, who served his clerkship to Mr. Henry John Ware, same quiet, simple, unpretending man, unassuming, without an atom of of York. vanity, or selfishness, or even self-assertion. Let it be forgiven if among the
Third Class. friends, by whom it will be understood, I use the kindly and endearing name by which we all knew bim so well-he was the same “ Jack Holker" from the
[In Alphabetical order.) beginning to the end. But it is not only in these aspects ; it is also as a
Stuart Frederick Bates, who served his olerksbip to Mr. Robert Spence judge we have to consider him. The short time be spent upon the bench was
Watson, of Newcastle-on-Type. spent in illness, in sickness, in pain ; in the decay, not of bis mental, but his Cbarles Frederick Bennett, who served bis clerkship to Mr. William physical powers, under infirmities which rendered the effort to use his mental Smitb, of Sbeffield. powers sometimes almost greater than he could endure. What he would bare Frederick William Boorman, who served bis olerkship to Mr. Edward been ultimately as a judge it is not possible for any of us to say, and in that White Bewley, of Gravesend. regard he must remain one of those“ heroes of unfulfilled renown," of whom Frank Joseph Carr, who served bis clerkship to Messrs. Dees & Thompthere are so many in life, and whose fate must fall on any thoughtful man son, of Newcastle-un-Type. who looks on the destinies of his race, if perhaps with hope, certainly with Edward Robert Porter Etberedge, who served bis clerkship to Mr. grave sadness. Mr. Gladstone, who is no bad judge in euch matters, Edward Atkinson, of Mancbester. is known to have said of him that he considered him one of the very George Murray Hill, B.A., who served his clerkship to Mr. John Wreford closest and most searless of legal reasoners he had ever listened to : Budd, of London. and I know that it was to Sir John Holker & singular and Harold Bee James, who served his clerkship to Mr. William Warren, of peculiar gratification that the just recognition of his great professional Leeds. eminence came from one wbo bad no peculiar bias to disturb his judgment Thomas Ambrose Nelbam, who served his clerkship to Mr. Jobn Rared, in bis favour. Certainly, if sense and learning; if vigorous understanding of London. and accurate language ; if strong grasp of facts and principles ; if transparent Gerard Paxon, who served bis clerkship to Mr. Joba Thomas France honesty of purpose ; if sweetness of temper, and unwearied courtesy, and Collins, of London.
John Ostler Philpio, who served his clerkship to Mr. Antony Temple, of Symonds, Christopher Barker Wakeford, William Frederick Kington.
Taylor, Bernard John Howard Odin Wansey, Ar hur Alfred William Latimer Sayer, who served his clerkship to Mr. William Simon Taylor, Marshall
Wathen, Edward Rackham, of Norwicb.
Tetley, Arthur Wilkinson
Webb, Edwin James Turner Sidney George Spreat, who served his clerkship to Mr. Joseph Addison, Thomas, Arthur Russell
Weeks, Vincent Bennett of London.
Thomas, Richard Jenkin
Wells, Er west Fleetwood The council bave given olass certificates to the above-named candidates. Thomson, William Archer
Welton, William The rumber who attended the examination was 52.
Wise, William Henry
Trimmer, Cbarles Henry
Wood, Frank Peters The following candidates were successful at the Preliminary Examination Tarner, Richard
Worrall, Williain Clarə
Wyson, Ho held on the 10th and 11th of May, 1882 :
Turnour, Edward Adolphus
Yeo, Hilary James
Vigers, Stanley Newton
Jones, John Thomas Auden, Thomas Edward
Jones, Watkin Ayscough-Smith, Hugh H.
Kent, Frederick Edwin Baites, James Elliott
Kesteven, John Broughton
Koek, Edwin Rowland
Sir CHARLES SInge Christorher Bowen, who bas beon app inted a Lord
Justice of the Court of Appeal, in succession to the lute Sir John Beecbing, Herbert John Lee, Arthur
Holker, is the son of the Rev. Christopher Bowen, and was born in 1836. He Bell, Robert Lewis, George Herbert
was educated at Rugby, and was successively scholur and fellow of Balliol Bennett, Ernest William Thomas Lilly, Humphrey Chetbam
College, Oxford. He obtained the Hertford Scholarship in 1855, the Ireland Besant, Henry Edgar Robert Litcbfield, Herbert
Scholarship and the Chancellor's Prize for Latin verse in 1857, and the Araold Bird, John Arthur Livett, William Bridges
Prize in 1859, and be graduated first class in litere humaniores in 1858. He Bird, John William Edwin Llewellin, William Cleeves
was called to the bar at Lincolu'n-inn in 1861, and practised on the Western Bolton, Walter Septimus Lloyd, Frederick Charles
Circuit. He was for several years recorder of the borough of Penzance, and Bostock, Henry
Lloyd-Worth, William Worth he was juoior common law counsel to the Treasury from 1872 till 1879, when, Bo:t ck, Wiliam Masefield Lucas, Edward
upon the resignation of Sir John Mellor, he was appointed a judge of the Boucher, Guy Boucher Lumb, George
Queen's Bench Division, and received the honour of knighthood. Lord
Justice Bowen is a bencher of Lincoln's-ing.
The Right Hon. John David FITZGERALD, LL.D., one of the judges of the
Queen's Bench Division in Ireland, who has been appointed an additional Burtov, Frederick George Maudsley, Laurence Long
Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Burton, Harry Maugham, George
Act, 1876, was born in 1916. He is an LL.D. of Trinity College, Dublin, Canning, Philip Lovell Hampden Mayron, Joseph
and he was called to the bar in Ireland in 1838, when he joined the Munster Caunter, Henry Lyde Messent, Francis Edward
Circuit. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1847, and he repre-ented Enuis in Cavell, Harry St. John Morton, John Tatbami
the Liberal interest from 1852 till 1860. In 1855 he was appointed SolicitorChaldecott, Francis Miller Mote, William Jabez
General for Ireland, and in the following year he became Attorney-General, Chamberlain, George Harry Mullock, Richard Arthur
and was sworn in as a member of the Irish Privy Council. He retired with Christie, George Norman Neve, William
his party in February, 1858, but he returned to office in June, 1859, and in Clencb, Sidney Avgustus Newton, George Daniel
the following year he was appointed a paisne judge of the Court of Queen's Clough, Robert William Nichols, John
Mr. John THOMPSON, Q.C., Attorney-General of Nova Scotia, has been Coom's, Richard Samuel Gurney Owen, John Vulliamy
appointed Prime Minist-r for that province. Copnall, Henry Hampton Palmer, Thomas Joseph Mills
Mr. THOMAS JOSEPH Tee, solicitor (of the firm of Ashley, Tee, & Son), of Cottrell, Charles Pearson, Alfred Crcs3
7, Frederick-place, Old Jewry, bas been appointed a Commissioner to adminisCrawshay, G. 8. Peren, Robert Henry
ter Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Cutler, G. H, W. Phillips, Frank
Mr. CHARLES Henry Reilly, barrister, of Calcutta, has been appointed to Daniell, Herbert Basil
Philipps, John Lewes Day, John Estcourt
officiate as Assistant Secretary to tue Government of Bengal in the Legislative Phillips, Hugh Stowell Dixon, Albert Edward
Department. Mr. Reilly was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in
Trinity Term, 1870.
Mr. William MARKBY, D.C.L., Reader on Indian law in the University of
Oxford, has been electei an Honorary Fellow of All Souls College.
Mr. Victor ALEXANDER WILLIAMSON, barrist-r, who has been created a
Companion of the Order of St. Michael amd St. George, in recognition of Fernihough, George Pye, William Edmund
bis public services in Mauritius ani Fiji, is the son of the late Sir Hedworth Fletcher, William Rawlins, Frederick Percy
Williamsoo, baronet. He was born in 1838; was educated at Cbrist Forward, Jobn Adams Ray, Percy Charles
Church, Oxford, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Gallaber, Thomas Henry Rayner, Wilfred
Term, 1865. He was formerly a member of the North-Eastern Circuit. Gifford, James
Raywood, Richard Glover, Arthur
Richardeon, William Hensbaw Goodwin, Thomas Henry
Rickards, Henry James
Roberts, Lewis Jones
Robinson, George Henry
Rorke, George Samuel
Joint STOCK COMPANIES.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.
GLOBE ACCIDENT ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, j,
dated May 22, it is ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company bo conHarris, Reginald Brunel Senior, Bernard
tinued. Wyatt and Barraud, Cannon st, solicitors for the petitioner
HENRY STUART AND COMPANY LIMITED, --By an order made by the Vice-Chancellor, Henderson, James Stewart Serjeant, Charles
dated May 15, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be con. Hervey, Charles Lionel Simmons, Robert
tinued. Galloway, Prescot, solicitor for the petitioner Hodgkinson, Edward Dixon Smith, Charles Arthur
LONDON AND PROVINCIAL TRADERS' WHOLESALE STORBS, LIMITED.--Creditors are Hodgson, Henry Smith, Harold Seton
required, on or before June 28, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars
of their debts or claims, to James Waddell, Queen Victoria st. Friday, July 7, at 12, Horsfall, Frederick Wilson Smith, Harry Hall
is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims Howard, William John Smith, Henry
NATIONAL Funds ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has fixed Wednesday, Howell, Edward Rawson
June 7, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator
WYNAAD DISTRICT GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED. - Petition for winding up,
presented May 15, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on June 10, Lawrance and Hughes, William Spencer, John Wilson
Co, Old Jewry chbrs, solicitors for the petitioner
[Gazette, May 26.] Isaacs, Alfred Henry
ANGLO-UNIVERSAL BANK, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated May 20, it Stoughton, John Arnold
was ordered that the voluntary win.ling up of the bank be continued. Ashurst and Jobpson, Arthur Ambrose
Stoddart, George Robert Douglas Co, Old Jewry, solicitors for the petitioner
GLYN NEATH COLLIERIES, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 21, Jones, Frederick Arthur Sweet, Arthur Francis
directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on June 9. Munton and Morris, Queen Victoria st, agents for Parker and Brailsford, Sheffield, solicitors for the petitioners
KUIGHLEY HERALD NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or
and the particulars of their debts
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
May 25.-Bill Read a Second Time.
Bills in Committee. (Gazette, May 30.1 Poor Rates (passed through Committee) ; Supreme Court of Judicature Acts UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.
Amendment. FIRST CHESHIRE PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.---Petition for winding up,
Bills Read a Third Time. presented May 24, directed to be heard before Fry, J., on Friday, June 9. Prior and Private Bills.—Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Junction Railway ; Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Harris, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioner
Easton Neston Mineral, and Towcester, Roade, and Onley Junction Railway ;
[Gazette, May 26.] COMMERCIAL BANK CORPORATION OF INDIA AND THE EAST.-Chitty, J., has, by an
Harris's Endowment and Dundee Education ; Newbaven Harbour ; Padiham order dated April 20, appointed Richard Alabaster, Guildhall chbrs, to be official and Hapton Local Board ; Radstock, Wrington, and Congresbary Junction liquidator, in the place of William Hopkins Holyland
Railway ; Rothwell Gas ; Rugby Gas; Stroud Water.
Bill to extend and improve the Middlesex Land Registry, and to amend the Roger LEIGH AND COMPANY, LIMITED.--Petition for winding up, presented May 25, law relating thereto (Mr. Hopwood).
directed to be heard before the Vice-Chancellor, 21, Old sq, Lincoln's inn, on June 12, at 10.30 Ritson and Grundy, Manchester, agents for Bryan, Hindley, solicitor for the petitioner
í Gazette, May 26.]
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
[Gazette, May 26.]
ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE ON COHEN'S PERSEVERANCE BENEFIT SOCIETY, Cocoa Rooms, Railway st, Kington on Hull.
COURT OF May 26
Y.C. Bacon. V. C. HALL
APPBAL. ROYAL FREE MINERS' FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Globe Inn, Cinderford, Gloucester. May 25
[Gazette, May 30.] Monday, June
6 Mr. Farrer Mr. Pemberton Mr. Merivale Tuesday,
Mr. Justico Mr. Justice Mr. Justice CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
6 Mr. Carrington Mr. Cobby Mr. Ward DARE, HENRY ÅRTHUR KEKEWICE Hall, Inner Temple. June 8.. Glyn v Lee Warner, Tuesday
Teesdale also Molesworth v Glyn, Hall, V.C. Wing and Dubane, Gray's inn sq
Ward FERNE, CHARLES, Merton, Surrey, Builder. June 20. London Joint Stock Loan, Dis
Teesdale count, and Investment Company, Limited v Ferne, Hall, V.C. Armstrong, Chancery lano
Ward HURRELL, Susar, Elm house, Brixton. June 2. Tandy v Green, Bacon, V.C. Tucker, Saturday.
St Michael's alley, Cornhill
SALES OF ENSUING WEEK,
June 7.-Messre. Edwin Fox & Bousriell), at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold and PAYNE, JAMES, Gloucester, stone Merchant. June 10. Philp v Payne, Fry, J. Stephen- June 8.-Messrs. C. C. & T. Moore, at the Mart, at 1 for 2 f.m., Freehold and
Leasehold Properties (see advertisement, May 20, p. 4).
Hall, V.C. Hankinson, Manchester
Stubbs v Wilson, Fry, J. Stubbs, Middlesbrough
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
Fiy, J. Cheese, Kington
Mellowe, solicitor, of a son.
MARRIAGE. WOODuraD, JOSEPH, Halifax, Cloth Manufacturer. June 19. Woodhead v Woodhead, CASE- WATTS.-May 27, at St. Saviour's Church, St. George's-square, Charles Chitty, J. Longbottom, Halifax
alfred Case, of Maidsione, solicitor, to Clara, daughter of the late Edward
[Gazette, May 19.1 Watts, of Hythe, Kent, solicitor, COOMBES, ROBERT, Thornhill rd, Barnsbury, Gentleman. June 20. Coombes v Parfitt,
Eolicitor, aged 58.
FRIDAY, May 26, 1882. ensuing Summer Assizes-viz. :-Western Circuit, Lindley, L.J., and Lopes,
Under the Bunkruptcy Act, 1869.
Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar. J.; South-Eastern Circuit, Pollock, B., and Hawkins, J.; Midland Circuit,
To Surrender in London, Giore and Fry, JJ. ; North Wales Circuit, Huddleston, B.; South Wales Amcy, John, New st, Dorset sq, Butcher. Pet May 23. Hazlitt, June 9 at 11 Circuit, Mapisty, J.; Oxford Circuit, Bowen, L.J., and Watkin Williams, J.; Kingsbury, Phillips Lucas, Fulham rd, Draper. Pet May 22. Pepys. June 14 at 12.30 North-Eastern Circuit, Mathew and Cave, JJ., and Northern Circuit, North, Turner, William Richard Eaton, Bedford row, Solicitor. "Pet May 22. Pepys. June 14 J., and another judge not yet selected.
To Surrender in the Country. On the motion in the House of Commons, on the 25th ult., for going into Abbott, Henry, Swansea, India Rubber Manufacturer. Pet May 23. Jones. Swansea, committee on the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment Bill, the Astley, John Henry, Blackburn, Lancaster, Painter. Pet May 20. Bolton. Blackburn, Attorney. General said the object of the Bill was to take away from the judges Eagle, Frederick, Bank blags, Wandsworth, Cheesemonger. Pet May 23. Willoughby. of the Supreme Court the power to make rules and regulations for the conduct of the business of the courts which they now possessed, and to provide Hamilton, Allan, Liverpool
, Shipowner. Pet May 22. Cooper. Liverpool, June 7 at 12 that any rules they might make should not come into operation until they Harries, Thomas, Carmarthen. Pet May 22. Lloyd. Carmarthen, June 6 at 1 bad been laid for forty days upon the table of the House. He could not
TUESDAY, May 30, 1882, assent to the Bill, wbich, he believed, was founded on a rumour that the
Under the bankruptcy Act, 1869.
Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar. judges intended to make such alterations in procedure as would practically to a great extent abolish trial by jury. If the Bill could be modified so as to Langdale, Percy William, and William Richard Eaton Turner, Bedford row, Holborn, limit its operation to any rules which should alter the mode of trial and
Solicitors. Pet May 26. Hazlitt. June 14 at 12 make it necessary that such alteration should be laid before Parliament, be Skinner, Richard Smith, Cullum st, Fenchurch st, Merchant. Pet May 26. Pepys. would favourably cousider it. Sir H. Giffard said the existing power for the Ziepcke, Ludwig, Upper East Smithfield, Tower hill, Ship Store Dealer. Pet May 20. judges to alter the law, especially that of trial by jury, by making rules, Pepys. June 14 at 1 should be limited. The Solicitor-General pointed out that the judges only Bridge, William, Vartry rd, Stamford hill, Surveyor. Pet May 26, Pulley. Edmonton,
To Surrender in the Country, had power to modify the rules, not the provisions of the Judicature Act.
To Surrender in London,
June 15 at 12