Page images
PDF
EPUB

time with the object of securing a provision for his widow and each of his children, sons until they attained the age of twenty-one years, and daughters until death or marriage. The pension was payable quarterly upon the bankrupt's declaration that she was unmarried. She also stated that, owing to the action of her creditors, she had been deprived of the whole of her income, and the pension was her sole means of support. If by an order of this court she was deprived of the pension, she had no means of subsistence whatever, and she would be compelled to seek parish relief. Her relatives and friends were persons of small means, or they had large families dependent upon them, and they would not afford her any assistance or support. Mr. Hunt, one of the officers of the Madras Medical Fund, gave evidence in regard to the nature of the pension. He produced the code of regulations of the fund, which was formed for the purpose of providing annuities for the widows and children of deceased medical officers. He said there were various branches of the fund. The rules called the income a" pension."

F. C. Willis, in support of the application.-The income in this case cannot be attached, and the bankrupt is entitled to the money. The trustee's applica tion must proceed under section 90 or not at all. The money cannot be received from the fund unless the bankrupt makes a declaration that she is still unmarried. So far from it being a "pension," it is property which the deceased officer bought by subscribing to a provident fund.

F. Turner, for the trustee.-The income represents property purchased with money in a particular way, and passes to the trustee. It is payable partly out of subscriptions and partly out of the capital fund, and if the officers fail to subscribe, they lose the benefit of the fund. The pension is capable of being assigned, and, if so, it passes to the trustee: Willcock v. Terrell (L. R. 3 Ex. D. 323). He also cited Sansom v. Sansom (L. R. 4 P. D. 69); Hopkins v. Clark (11 L. T. N. S. 204). The trustee was willing to allow the bankrupt £10 10s. per year out of the pension.

Willis, in reply.-Willcock v. Terrell was decided under a particular Act of Parliament which gave power to attach. If the property in this case be attached, the authorities may decline to pay, because the bankrupt cannot eign a declaration in the form required.

Judgment was postponed for a time in consequence of the case of Ex parte Huggins pending in the Court of Appeal. June 28.- Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said there was no doubt the pension passed to the trustee as property of the bankrupt. In Ex parte Huggins the registrar decided that the pension passed, and the whole of it was receivable by the trustee. That decision was varied by the Court of Appeal, their lordships considering that, although the declaration was right, and that the pension was assignable and passed to the trustee, yet, notwithstanding, the right of the trustee to the whole pension was controlled by section 90, and he could not appropriate the whole of the estate. His postponement of the decision was therefore fully justified, and the exposition of the Court of Appeal Re Huggins had relieved him from all difficulty in regard to the construction to be put on the several sections of the Act. The amount to be set apart involved a question of discretion. He was of opinion that if he were to adopt the proposal of the trustee, and leave only £10 103. per annum for the bankrupt, he should be depriving her of the necessary means of support, and such an order would almost savour of oppression. But, at the same time, regard must be had to the interests of the creditors, and the bankrupt could have no right to complain at having to reduce her expenditure, which in some respects seemed to have been somewhat extravagant, having regard to the means at her disposal. (Upon this point the registrar referred to the statement of affaire.) Under all the circumstances of the case, and bearing in mind the difficulty which a lady in the bankrupt's position would probably experience in finding any employment which might enable her to eke out any additional income, he was of opinion that the proper order would be that out of the quarterly instalments of the pension to be received by the trustee there should be allowed and paid to the bankrupt in each quarter the sum of £13 13., being at the rate of £1 1s. per week, the balance of each such quarterly instalment to be retained by the trustee and applied by him as part of the estate of the bankrupt in due course of administration. costs of all parties would be paid out of the estate. Solicitor for the bankrupt, T. P. Frame.

Solicitor for the trustee, H. Rumney.

SOLICITORS' CASES.

COURT OF APPEAL, LINCOLN'S INN (from Queens Bench Division). (Before JESSEL, M.R., and LINDLEY and BOWEN, L.JJ.) June 30.-Storry v. Honywood.

The

This was an appeal by the defendant, Sir John Honywood, from a judgment of Grove, J., directing payment of the plaintiff's bill of costs in respect of which the action was brought. It appeared that the late Mr. Daniel Keane had carried on business as a solicitor for very many years at 25, Lincoln's-inn-fields, and that his son, Mr. C. F. Keane, though never articled, used to manage the business for his father. Upon the death of Mr. Daniel Keane in 1879 Mr. William Aikman Storry, who was a solicitor with offices in Lombard-street, came to the office in Lincoln's-inn-fields, and had the names "Keane and Storry" painted up there. Mr. Storry was in the habit of calling several times a week at Lincoln's-inn-fields to look after the business, which was carried on under the firm of Keane & Storry; but

the work was actually done by a staff of clerks under the superintendence of C. F. Keane. Sir John Hony wood became acquainted with C. F. Keane, and had employed him to transact various matters of business for him under the impression that he was the "Keane " whose name appeared on the Coor-post. In April, 1880, Sir John wrote to his former solicitors, Messrs. Sandilands, Humphry, & Armstrong, requesting them to hand over "to

my solicitors, Messrs. Keane & Storry, of 25, Lincoln's-inn-fields, and 27, Lombard-street, all documents and papers belonging to me in your possession, and also to furnish to them any costs you may have against me for settlement." A bill of costs for upwards of £200 having been sent in by "Keane and Storry," Sir John Honywood repudiated payment, on the ground that he did not intend to retain and had not retained Storry as his solicitor, but that he had retained and employed C. F. Keane, who was not a solicitor, under the impression that he was a solicitor and the "Keane" whose name appeared on the door-post, and, consequently, that any retainer of "Storry and Keane was null and void, and gave Sorry no right of action. Upon the trial of the action, which was originally brought in the name of "Keane and Storry," and afterwards amended by being brought in the name of Storry, carrying on business as Keane & Storry, Grove, J., gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the bill of costs. From this decision the defendant now appealed.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

the clerks in the office.

option of either calling Messrs. C. F. Keane & Storry to explain the JESSEL, M.R., said that the court would give the plaintiff's counsel the transaction, or of continuing the argument subject to the risk, according to their lordships' present impression of the case, of having the judgment in favour of the plaintiff reversed.

Storry, and contended that where, as in this case, a retainer was given to a Candy elected to proceed with his case without calling Messrs. Keane & firm of solicitors it mattered not to the person giving the retainer who were the individual members constituting the firm. The mere fact that the names of certain persons as solicitors appeared on the door of their office was no this case there had been a clear retainer by the defendant of a firm carrying evidence per se that solicitors of that name were to be found in the office. In on business at 25, Lincoln's-inn-fields, and it was a shabby and mean defence on the part of Sir John Honywood, who admitted that the work had been done for him, and that by the exertions of the firm money had been recovered to enable him to pay his debts, now to attempt to repudiate on merely techni cal grounds the retainer which he had given.

JESSEL, M.R., said that this was a very unpleasant case to deal with. It was an action brought on an alleged retainer by a solicitor, and the retainer was denied. Now, a retainer being a personal matter, it became necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant, Sir John Hony wood, had retained and employed him to conduct his business. The names over the door were "Keane and Storry." The defendant said that he believed that Charles F. Keane was the Keane whose name was over the door, and that he was, in fact, a soli. citor. It was admitted that he never saw the plaintiff and never heard of him until the work was done, and that the plaintiff never, in fact, took any part in any of the business in respect of which he sought to recover. It was also admitted that there never was a partnership between two persons of the names of Keane and Storry, and that, in fact, there was no such firm. It was suggested that Keane carried on, though not qualified to do so, the business of a solicitor under the protection of Storry's name; and that having been suggested, neither Keane nor Storry were called at the trial to deny it. That left the evidence in a very unsatisfactory state, but the court, granting what they thought was an indulgence, permitted the plaintiff's counsel to supplement the evidence given in the court below by calling those two persons as wit nesses. This option having been refused after due consideration, the infer. ence was simply overwhelming. But, apart from that, even if the plaintiff were proved to have been carrying on business as a solicitor, with Keane as his clerk, he could not recover in this action, for the simple reason that it was not proved that the defendant ever intended to retain Storry. With all respect to Grove, J., his judgment could not be supported, and must be reversed, and inasmuch as the money had been paid it must be repaid, with costs, both here and in the court below.

LINDLEY, L.J., said that after what had taken place, the court could not resist the conclusion that the plaintiff dared not submit to an investigation, in the absence of which it was impossible to ascertain the real relations between Keane and himself. But it was clear upon the evidence that the defendant never employed Storry and never employed Keane as Storry's agent. In short,

there was no retainer either at law or in fact.

BOWEN, L.J., concurred.

Solicitors, W. A. Storry ; Sandilands, Humphry, & Armstrong.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

(Sittings at Guildhall, before MANISTY, J., and a Special Jury.)

July 3.-George v. Boyes.

This was an action for slander and libel alleged to have been spoken and published of the plaintiff in a matter relating to his profession of solicitor. W. G. Harrison, Q.C., and Folkard, appeared for the plaintiff. McIntyre, Q.C., W. Graham, and Agabeg, for the defendant. Both the plaintiff and defendant are solicitors in Barnet, and the defendant is also commissioner for taking oaths in that place. It appeared that in the month of February of this year the plaintiff was acting for a Mrs. Tomlinson in the matter of the redemption of a mortgage, and for this purpose it was necessary to have a statutory declaration on her part as to the date of ber marriage and the number of her children. The plaintiff accordingly prepared a draft for this purpose, instructing his client to fill up the necessary

particulars as to the place and date of her marriage. This draft was taken by
Mrs. Tomlinson to the defendant, who, however, refused to allow it to be
sworn, on the ground that it contained blanks for the date of the proposed
deed. Some communications then ensued between the plaintiff and
defendant, as to the effect of which there was much controversy. According
to the plaintiff, he sent word to the defendant that he might strike out the
words "bearing date" and the blank spaces. The defendant, however,
alleged that he himself proposed to do this, but that Mrs. Tomlinson and her
son would not consent, and that the plaintiff sent word to him to say that he
was bound to take the affidavit as it was, and that the blanks might be filled
up afterwards. It was said that on the same day the defendant committed
the slander complained of in a conversation with Mr. Erle, a brewer in the
town, and said, among other things: "A sad thing happened this morning.
That man over the way wanted me to take an affidavit with a blank in it
about a line or two long. But I would not do anything of the kind, as it
would be dangerous to do so. I did not know what he would have filled in.
He might fill in anything; very likely something that would get him
transported. He has articled his son this morning, but what can he teach
him?"
On the same day he wrote to the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society
a letter which contained the alleged libel. The letter was as follows :-"A
professional gentleman in this town to-day required me to take a statutory
declaration in which occurred certain blanks as to the date, &c., &c., of some
contemplated deeds, and which blanks he (the solicitor) said he could here-
after fill in himself. As a commissioner I declined to set my name to a
document hereafter to be added to in this manner, and refused to take the
declaration, thereby drawing upon myself the reproaches of the solicitor in
question. I should be glad to know whether or not you consider that I have
acted with propriety and in accordance with the terms upon which I appre-
hend we commissioners hold our commissions."
The words charged as slanderous were deposed to by Mr. Erle, to whom
they were said to have been addressed, and by his traveller, who said he was
present at the time, but that the expressions were used in a somewhat jocular
and not very spiteful manner. The defendant said he spoke to Mr. Erlo, who
was a solicitor as well as a brewer, in order to obtain his opinion upon the
course which he had followed, and this version of the conversation which took
place was different. It appeared also that that there had been previous dis-
putes between Mr. Erle and the defendant, and that the former had been
prosecuted and fined for assaulting the clerk of the latter. As to the letter to
the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, the contention on behalf of the
defendant was that it could not be construed as containing a libel on the
plaintiff, as it did not even mention his name, and was written in good faith
in order to settle the question which had arisen. Much stress was laid by
counsel for the plaintiff upon the fact that the statement of defence contained
a justification of the allegation that the plaintiff wanted the defendant to take
a declaration with a blank in it a line or two long. To explain this the
defendant said that he had been advised that, in order to plead justification,
it was necessary to justify the precise words charged in the statement of
claim.
His LORDSHIP remarked, in summing up, that no such reason could warrant
a man in putting a statement upon the record, the truth of which he could not
support on his oath.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on both counts for £25 damages.
His LORDSHIP gave judgment accordingly, and certified for a special jury.—
Times.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

(Before MANISTY, J., and a Special Jury.)

June 27-30.-Ward and others v. Davis.

her husband's will to obtain a declaration of certain trusts and to have it
declared by the court that, by an agreement between her late husband and
herself, executed on April 3, 1843, the house in which she now resides in
Brighton, having been purchased by her money, though the conveyance had
been in the name of her husband, was to be secured to her, as also a sum of
£500 of his money; and, further, that a charge of £800, created in her late
husband's favour on another house she had in Sussex-square, Brighton, had'
been paid off in his lifetime. The plaintiffs were consulted by her in June,
1878, and Mr. Lambert, the junior partner, had first taken charge of the case.
In June, 1879, circumstances arose which induced the senior partner to take
upon himself the responsibility of conducting the suit. A great deal neces-
sarily turned in the suit of Davis v. Davis on the document alleged by Mrs.
Davis to have been executed on April 3, 1843. That produced by her to her
solicitors was, as she led them to believe, the original. After the delivery of
the statement of claim in the action, early in 1879, this document was
examined by witnesses to be called at the trial by the other side, and Mr.
Chabot, one of them, expressed a strong opinion that the signature to it pur-
porting to be that of the late Mr. Davis was not genuine. This was called
to the attention of the then plaintiff, Mrs. Davis, by her solicitors,
but she adhered to her statement that the document was the original, and shi
also alleged that one of the sons could testify to the handwriting of his father on
the document. On April 23, 1879, she admitted that it was not the original
document, but said that it was a duplicate copy which she had written out for
her husband at his request the day after he had signed the original, and that his
name had been signed to it by her at his request, as he had been suffering from
goat in the hand at the time. She had repeatedly told the plaintiffs that she
had paid the whole of the purchase-money for the house at No. 9, Norfolk.
square, Brighton, but they found out from a letter written by her to her late
busband in 1849 that he had paid two-fifths of the £500 paid for it. As to
her statement that the £800 charge which had been held by her husband on
the house in Sussex-square had been paid off, the plaintiffs found that this
was wholly inconsistent with the contents of the letters which had passed
between her husband and her brother subsequently to the date at which she
declared it had been paid off. On November 1, 1879, the plaintiffs gave notice
to the defendant that they would not continue to act any longer for her, as
they really could not rely upon her statements, and would not take the
responsibility of putting her in the box to prove her case, since they feared
she would commit perjury. On December, 18, 1879, the action of Davis v.
Davis came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Fry, when his lordship, calling
attention to the fact of its being a family dispute of a painful character, ad-
vised that it should be compromised. This suggestion was carried out, and
the basis of the settlement was to secure the mother, the present defendant,
the enjoyment of the property for her life; and, among other things, it was
agreed that the charge of £800 on the house in Sussex-square should not be
enforced during her lifetime It was further agreed that each side should
pay their own costs. Mrs. Davis afterwards sought to get this com-
promise set aside, but Mr. Justice Fry refused to do so, and said that
its terms were very favourable for her. At the hearing of the action of
Davis v. Davis Mrs. Davis had been represented by two learned counsel, one
of whom has since been made a Queen's Counsel, and they had been fully
instructed as to the facts on which she relied in proof of her case. Mr. Ward
had helped the solicitor who had acted for her, after his own firm had thrown
up her case, in every possible way, and had prepared the briefs without
| making any charge. It should be mentioned that the plaintiffs, at an early
stage, had agreed to settle the action for the defendant on certain terms, which
she had accepted, but that the settlement went off, as by it each party would
have had to pay his own costs-the term in the subsequent compromise of which
Mrs. Davis had also many months afterwards complained. While for the
plaintiffs it was contended that they had been fully justified in withdrawing
from the case of Davis v. Davis, it was urged for the defence that this was not

This action was brought to recover about £170, the amount of a bill of 80, and that solicitors taking up contentious business were bound to take it as

costs.

Jelf, Q.C., and Henn Collins, appeared for the plaintiffs.
Waddy, Q.C., and A. G. M. M'Intyre, were for the defendant.

The plaintiffs are solicitors, who have offices at No. 1, Gray's-inn-square, and the defendant is a widow, residing at 9, Norfolk-square, Brighton. The defendant did not deny having given the plaintiffs a retainer, but she pleaded that the work done by them for her had not been done properly, and that they had wrongfully given up her case. By her counter claim against the firm she sought to recover damages from them, on the ground that they had wrong fully kept back papers from her and had concealed facts necessary for her case from the solicitor whom she had employed on their throwing it up. She also sought to recover damages from Mr. Ward, the senior member of the plaintiff firm, for slander alleged to have been spoken of her to another solicitorMr. Potter-who, at her instance, had gone to Mr. Ward with a view of ascertaining whether or not he would be able to take up the case for her after the plaintiffs had determined to throw it up. This claim for the alleged slanderous words was abandoned. Evidence of the alleged slander was, how. ever, given, as the counsel for the defence was of opinion that the conversation between Mr. Ward and Mr. Potter, in which it was alleged to have been uttered, was of vital importance to his case. Mr. Ward, in a conversation which he had had with Mr. Potter, and which both of them had considered to be strictly confidential, had, among other things, expressed it as his opinion that if Mrs. Davis went into the box in the suit of Davis v. Davis she would perjure herself. Mr. Potter's e.idence was, further, to the effect that Mr. Ward had seemed anxious that she should, as far as possible, be protected, and should receive every assistance in the conduct of her suit. The defendant had been married to one James Davis on April 29, 1843, who had been the steward of the late Sir Francis Moon, and a settlement had been executed just before the marriage. The husband died in May, 1878, and the action of Davis v. Davis was subsequently brought by Mrs. Davis against her eldest son -to whom the father had left the bulk of his property-and the executors of

a complete job, and in the absence of circumstances justifying withdrawaland that was the present case-the contract was to carry the litigation through. It was further urged by the counsel for the defence that any withdrawal must be only after reasonable notice, and that any want of ready money on the part of the client would not entitle a solicitor to withdraw from a case at the last

moment.

jury to say (1) if Mr. Ward had been entitled to cease to act for the defendant MANISTY, J., summed up the case at considerable length, leaving it to the reasonable grounds, that he ought not any longer to act for her; and -that was, whether or not he had honestly come to the conclusion, on (2) whether or not the notice of the withdrawal from her case by the plaintiffs was given too late, so as to cause damage to her.

The jury, without leaving the box, at once found for the plaintiffs on both claim and counter-claim.

His LORDSHIP thereupon gave judgment accordingly, certifying for a special jury.-Times.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. June 27.-An animated debate, extending over three and a half hours, took place upon the question, "That the Government does not deserve the confidence of the country," which Mr. A. M. Ellis opened in the affirmative. The opener received support from Messrs. Lloyd Jones, Bower, Strickland, and C. E. Barry, while Messrs. Bartlett, P. T. Rhys, Davies, and Corrie Grant upheld the policy of the Government. On a division being taken the opponents of the Government won by the narrow majority of two, Thirtyfour members and a visitor were present.

SOCIETIES.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

The following are extracts from the annual report of the council:Accommodation of Solicitors in the New Law Courts-Last year the council stated that the Lord Chancellor had given them facilities for inspecting two of the new courts which had been fitted up provisionally-one with a jury box and one without. The council availed themselves of the opportunity thus afforded, and prepared suggestions for improving the arrangements for the accommodation of soliciters. The court without the jury-box was fi ted up in the same style as the present Rolls Court, where solicitors are provided with a seat under the registrar's desk, with their feet in a depression called a well, there being no table. The only place, therefore, for the solicitor's papers is the floor, which is usel as a pasige by every person crossing the court, and particularly by Queen's Counsel in reaching their seats.

The council strongly objected to this arrangement, and urged that, instead of the pace allotted to solicitors being also used as a gangway for counsel and others, it should be devoted exclusively to solicitors, with a table on which to take notes or arrange papers, and that the seats for counsel should be intersected by a passage from the back to the front of the court. The adoption of this suggestion would add much to the comfort both of the solicitors and the barristers. Failing this, the conncil suggested that the Queen's Counsels' seats should be made wide eucugh to enable them to pass easily behind any barrister who may be addressing the court at the moment. In the court with the jury-boz a table was provided, but it was only half the length of the Queen's Counsels' seat. The council urged that the table for solicitors should be the same length as that for the Queen's Counsel. It was also suggested that more room could be provided for solicitors by doing away with the passage behind the jury-box and setting it back to the wall, as the existence of such a passage was objectionable, inasmuch as it would enable jurymen to mingle with other persons in the court.

It was pointed out to the Lord Chancellor that solicitors inour as much responsibility, and have as many difficulties to grapple with, as any other persons engaged in the trial of a cause, and that the public interest would not be properly consulted unless sufficient accommodation were afforded to them, and that it would be a matter for regret if the models afforded by the Court of Exchequer at Westminster and the Court of Appeal at Lincoln's-inn were departed from.

The council also made a suggestion that solicitors should have the same access to the corridors surrounding the courts and to the courts themselves, and such other conveniences as will be enjoyed by counsel, and that solicitors should bave the joint use, with the bar, of any library that might be provided. They also asked that rooms should be set apart for the exclusive use of solicitors other than the waiting-rooms used by their clerks.

The Lord Chancellor stated, in reply, that the architect bad been instructed to give effect to the views of the council as far as practic ble. Legal Procedure.-The report of the Lord Chancellor's committee on this subject was issued in October last, and, in pursuance of the pledge given by the council in their last annual report, a print of it was sent to each member of the society, and a special general meeting was held on the 18th of November, 1881, when the subject was discussed. In the result the report was referred to a committee of members of the society, with power to invite suggestions, and with an instruction to apply to the secretaries of the provincial law societies for the names of country members willing to

Berve.

The committee held numerous meetings, and on the 30th of January made a report to the council, a print of which has already been sent to every member of the society.

The importance of this able and exhaustive document was recognized at a special general meeting, held on the 22nd of February, 1882, when the report of the committee was unanimously adopted.

In pursuance of a resolution then passed, prints of this report have been sent to the Lord Chancellor, to her Majesty's judges, and the law officers of the Crown. The interest shown in the subjects dealt with in the report has led to its more extensive circulation.

The members are no doubt aware that, when the Rale Committee of Judges have agreed upon and issued new rules under the Judicature Act, they immediately take effect. In view of an answer given by the Attorney General on the subject to Sir Hardinge Giffard, that the new rules for carrying into effect the views expressed in the report of the Lord Chancellor's committee would not be submitted to Parliament, Sir Hardinge Giffard brought in a Bill for the purpose of providing that any new rules which may in future be framed by the Rale Committee of Judges under the Judicature Act should, before they came into operation, be laid on the table of the House for forty days. The council have prepared a petition to the House of Commons in favour of this Bill; but the material part of the measure was omitted on a division in committee on the 12th of June last. Solicitorships to Government Departments.-The solicitorship to the General Post-office having become vacant in January last by the death of Mr. Horace Watson, the council, having in mind the efforts made by this society to secure the appointment of solicitors to offices of this character, addressed a letter to the Prime Minister on the subject.

The council were glad to find that the vacant post had been filled by the appointment of Mr. Robert Hunter, a member of this society.

The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1881.-This Bill, which was introduced into the House of Lords in July last, contained a provision to the effect that the qualification for the office of district registrar of the High Court should be that of a barrister or solicitor of five years' standing.

This being one of the very few offices exclusively confined to solicitors, and for which their education and training peculiarly fit them, the council felt that it would neither be expedient nor just to throw it open to barristers, who could not be so well qualified to perform the special duties of the office, which a re, to a large extent, of an administrative and technical character. They accordingly, with the aid of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, prepared amendments for confining the appointment to solicitors, which, they are glai to state, were adopted.

There was another defect in the same Bill with reference to the alteration of the rules for regulating the examination of articled clerks and the admis sion of solicitors, which the council succeeded in removing. The powers for the purposes referred to were vested by the Bill in the Presidents of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions, and the Master of the Rolls, and could be exercised in some cases by any two of them, and in other cases by any three of them, the Master of the Rolls being one. Of these, only the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls now remain, and, in the event of its having become necessary to alter the rules referred to, there would have been no power to do so. The amendments introduced into the Bill were designed for the purpose of providing for this contingency. Conveyancing Bill. This Bill contained many clauses which, although inserted in that of last session, were nevertheless not in the Act passed. The council have reviewed the opinions expressed by them last year on several of the clauses which have been reinstated in the present Bill. With regard to "Searches," the Bill (clause 3) does not extend to bank. ruptcies, and no provision is made to meet the case of loss arising from error in the certificat. After full consideration the council repeated the recommendation made by them on the Bill of 1880-viz., that all registrations of judgments, Crown debts, &c., should be swept away, and the judgment creditor or the Crown should be entitled to apply to the court in a summary way to sell any interest in land, of whatever nature, to which the debtor may be entitled, whether in possession or reversion, and such application should be capable of registration as a lis pendens, which should have no force or effect for more than six months after registration. Also that conveyances to pur chasers should be good as against trustees in bankruptcy (notice or no notice) unless the trustee is in possession, or the proceedings in bankruptcy have been registered as a lis pendens.

It was suggested to the council that a provision for this purpose ought to be inserted in any new Bankruptcy Act, and after some correspondence with the Board of Trade, the council, at the request of the Board, prepared for its consideration a clause for carrying into effect the views above expressed.

Upon the question of "Notice" generally the council called attention to the case of The Saffron Walden Building Society v. Rayner, and suggested, as a modification of the law as there laid down, that notice to the solicitor generally acting for the trustees, or having the custody of, or access to the deeds, with a letter from him that he had communicated the notice to the trustees, should be sufficient.

Clause 6 contained a provision for the abolition of acknowledgments of deeds by married women, to which the council objected. In the experience of commissioners for taking acknowledgments, cases have arisen where, on examination of a married woman, it has appeared either that the transaction had not been properly explained to her, or that a provision which such cases are not unfrequent, and the council are satisfied that in a much had been promised to her had not been duly secured. It is believed that larger number of cases the knowledge that an examination before commissioners must take place prevents irregular dealings with the property of married women which would otherwise be attempted.

To render the present practice less cumbrous, it was suggested that one commissioner, not interested in the matter, should be sufficient, instead of two (one of whom may be interested in the matter) as at present required, and that no other certificate of acknowledgment should be necessary than a memorandum indorsed on the deed, signed by the commissioner to the effect of the present certificate, and that no affidavit should be required.

The council prepared amendments for carrying this and other minor suggestions into effect, and requested Mr. Gregory to move them in committee on the Bill in the House of Commons.

The Bill is now under the consideration of a select committee.

Settled Land Bill.-This Bill is substantially the same as that upon which the council last year submitted remarks. They, at that time, expressed their concurrence in the principles of the Bill, and made various suggestions upon it which have been, to a great extent, adopted. A few matters of detail in the present Bill appeared to them to require consideration, and they accordingly prepared amendments, which Mr. Gregory and Mr. Horace Davey have been good enough to move in the House of Commons. This Bill has also been referred to a select committee.

Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices Bill).-The Council have considered this Bill, and have come to the following conclusions, viz. :— (1) That a solicitor or election agent, charged with any corrupt practice by or before election commissioners, should no longer be liable to be suspended from his business of election agent for seven years, without first having notice of the charge, and an opportunity of being heard by himself, counsel, and witnesses in answer to such charge.

Instances have occurred where solicitors, who have given every information and facility to the commissioners in the recent Bribery Commissions, have, without any notice or definite charge being brought against them, been reported guilty of corrupt practices, and have thus become suspended as election agents for seven years.

(2) That any person or body charged with any corrupt or illegal practice by or before an election court or election commissioners should not only have notice, but should be entitled to be heard by counsel or solicitor and witnesses before being reported.

The trial of a person accused of corrupt practices is as important as any

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

other trial; it not only affects his social and professional position, but also his exercise of the franchise.

Under the existing law a person can be reported without previous notice, or without being heard, but this report has no effect, so far as regards the penalties attaching to such an offence, until notice has been given to him and he has been heard. Under the present Bill, however, the consequences of a corrupt act are to attach immediately upon the report being made.

(3) That a solicitor, or parliamentary agent, consulted after an election is over, and with reference to an election petition pending or threatened, should be absolutely privileged before election commissioners.

The privilege was formerly accorded to parliamentary agents, and is necessary both in the client's interest and on the ground of public policy. In the client's interest it is important that he should, when threatened with an election petition, be able to obtain the opinion of an independent solicitor who has had nothing to do with the election, and who may be able to give him reliable advice without fear of the consequences, aud without fear of being forced to incriminate persons from whom he obtained the information upon which he bases his advice.

On the ground of public policy this privilege should also be accorded, because when the client has found that his seat is gone, he cares but little about the constituency, and may be willing to tell the commissioners, through his solicitor, all he knows. The solicitor, having once obtained information under the pledge of confidence, should not be compelled to disclose it. The practice of some election commissioners has been scarcely fair as between the solicitor and the barrister concerned in an election petition. No barrister consulted, or holding a brief in any of the recent election petitions, is known to the council to have been summoned or examined by any of the recent bribery commissioners.

Some of the commissioners stringently examined solicitors concerned in election petitions as to their acts up to the moment of their entering the barristers' consultation room, and from the moment of their leaving it, but considered that which took place in the consultation room as exempt from investigation. It appears that books, papers, and documents belonging to solicitors were impounded, and that solicitors were required to disclose everything they held and knew.

There seems to be no more ground for denying to solicitors privilege before election commissioners than before any other court, and there is less ground now that the present Bill seeks to turn the court of the commissioners from being a mere court of inquiry into a court of trial and judgment.

The council have placed their report in the hands of the law officers of the Crown, and in those of the other legal members in the House of Commons; and Mr. Gregory and Mr. Fowler, of Wolverhampton, have given notice of amendments for carrying the views here expressed into effect. The council have to thank Mr. F. R. Parker for the assistance afforded by him in the consideration of this matter.

Remuneration of Solicitors.-The council, in their report for last year, enumerated the various steps they had taken with reference to this subject, and the modifications they had obtained in the Solicitors' Remuneration Bill, then passing through Parliament; notably a provision that the president of the society should be a member of the tribunal appointed by the Act for regulating the charges of solicitors, and also that before any general order was made, it should be submitted to the council for one month, in order to afford them an opportunity of making observations upon it, which should be taken into consideration by the tribunal.

The Liverpool Law Society also, much to the satisfaction of the council, obtained a provision that the president of one of the provincial law societies (to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor) should also be a member of the tribunal. The Bill, with these alterations, became law last session. The Lord Chancellor, in exercise of his power, appointed the president of the Liverpool Law Society as the fifth member of the tribunal. The council, at the earliest possible moment, appointed a special committee to consider whether any and what proposal should be made to the tribunal on the subject of costs. The committee were empowered to communicate with the country law societies. The committee held several meetings and prepared a statement of what had been previously done, which they forwarded to the provincial law societies, with a series of questions for the purpose of eliciting their views upon the matter.

After fall and careful consideration of the replies received, the committee prepared a proposed draft general order, which was also submitted to the provincial societies. The Associated Provincial Law Societies held meetings to consider it, and several conferences took place between them and the committee of the council, and certain modifications were made to meet the views then expressed, and ultimately a resolution was passed by the associated societies on the 1st of February last, approving the draft of an order (ander date of the 6th of January, 1882), which was sent in by the president to the Lord Chancellor. The associated societies sent a copy of this resolution to the president of the Liverpool Law Society, and expressed a hope that he would, as a member of the tribunal, support the provisions of

the order.

The council are informed by the president that the draft order is under the consideration of the tribunal, but up to the time of going to press no definite conclusion has been arrived at.

Applications for Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration.—It will be remembered that the council, some time ago, had their attention drawn by the registrars of the Probate Court to an irregular practice which had arisen -viz., the employment of law stationers, by London and country solicitors, to transact probate business in the names of the solicitors for remuneration of some kind. The matter was laid before eminent counsel, who advised that the practice was illegal. Communications to that effect were made to the country law societies. It was also urged that if the solicitors discountenanced the

practice, it would cease. The Associated Provincial Law Societies passed a resolution condemning the practice.

The law stationers, however, continued to transact the business referred to, and the council addressed a circular to them, suggesting that they should either discontinue the objectionable practice, or concur with the council in obtaining a judicial decision upon the point without unnecessary expense. The law stationers having declined to adopt either course, actions were brought against Messrs. Waterlow Brothers & Layton, and Messrs. Shaw & Blake, which were tried in May, 1831; the jury was discharged in each case by consent, and judgment entered for the society, it having been arranged that, in view of an appeal, a statement of facts should be handed to the judge to be appended to his notes.

The appeals were heard in February last, the Court of Appeal holding that the defendants did act with respect to a proceeding in the Court of Probate, but that they did not contravene the provisions of the statute, for that they did not act as proctors in their own names, or in the name of any other person, this judgment being based upon the view taken by the court that the law stationers charged the solicitors a messenger's fee only for the time occupied in attending at the Probate Registry. Since the decision of the Court of Appeal, the opinion of counsel has been taken as to carrying the cases to the House of Lords, and their advice is to do Counsel consider that, if the law stationers did not act as proctors, it might, on the same principle, be held that, in attending summonses at chambers, they would not act as solicitors.

So.

The council have, therefore, taken the necessary steps towards appealing to the House of Lords; but, before proceeding further, they thought it right to take the opinion of the general body of the members on the subject, and a special general meeting for this purpose was held on the 9th of June, when it was decided by a large majority that the appeals should be prosecuted.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Lord FITZGERALD and Lord Justice BowEN have been sworn in as members of the Privy Council.

Mr. Justice DAY has received the honour of Knighthood.

Mr. EDWARD HILLMAN, solicitor, of Lewes and Eastbourne, has been appointed Deputy Coroner for the Eastern Division of the County of Sussex. Mr. Hillman was admitted a solicitor in 1854.

Mr. WILLIAM DAGGETT, solicitor and notary (of the firm of Ingledew & Daggett), of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead, has been appointed Country Secretary to the Bishop of Newcastle. Mr. Daggett was admitted a solicitor in He is one of the registrars of the Newcastle and Gateshead County Courts, and district registrar under the Judicature Acts.

1848.

Mr. RANDOLPH CHARLES WANT, solicitor, of No. 34, Clement's-lane, Lombard-street, E.C., has been appointel a Commissioner for Affidavits of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Mr. FREDERICK STEPHEN DAUNCEY, solicitor (of the firm of F. S. & C. Dauncey), of Newport, Mon., and Tredegar, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. MARSHALL PONTIFEX, solicitor, of 1, St. Andrews-street, Holborn, bas been appointed by Alderman De Keyser (sheriff-elect) to be one of the UnderMr. Pontifex is the Sheriff's of London and Middlesex for the ensuing year. son of the late Mr. John Pontifex, solicitor. He was admitted in 1856, and he is ward clerk of Farringdon Without, vestry clerk of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, and clerk to the Armourers and Braziers' Company.

Mr. JOHN FREDERICK ISAACSON, solicitor, of 40, Norfolk-street, has been elected Clerk to the St. Clement Danes Holborn Estate Charity. Mr. Isaacson is vestry-clerk of the parish of St. Clement Danes, and clerk to the Commissioner of Taxes for St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. He is also clerk (jointly with his son, Mr. Charles Isaacson) to the licensing justices for the Strand Division. Mr. Isaacson was admitted a solicitor in 1826.

Mr. THOMAS HUGH HORWOOD, solicitor, of 31, John-street, Bedford-row, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. ALEXANDER WILLIAM MORRIS, solicitor, of Penarth, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. EDGAR ALEXANDER BAYLIS, solicitor (of the firm of Baylis & Pearce), of Church-court Chambers, Old Jewry, has been elected Solicitor to the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London, in succession to his father, the late Mr. Alexander John Baylis. Mr. E. A. Baylis was educated at Rugby, and was admitted a solicitor in 1864. He is returning officer for the borough of Chelsea, and is now serving the office of under-sheriff of London and Middlesex for the second time. Mr. Baylis is associated with his partner, Mr. Robert Pearce, as vestry clerk of St. Giles's, Cripplegate, and ward clerk of Cripplegate Without.

Mr. M. T. HODDING, solicitor, of 77, Chancery-lane, London, W.C., has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths for the Colony of Victoria, Australia,

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. WILLIAM GARRARD SNOWDON GARD, JOSEPH JOHN CORBIN, and ALFRED WILLIAM HALL (Gard, Corbin, & Hall), solicitors, 2, Gresham-buildings, Basinghall-street, London. June 30.

THOMAS HEWITT and HENRY ROBERT TAYLER ALEXANDER (Hewitt & Alexander), solicitors, 27, Ely-place, E.C., and Walton-on-Thames. June 30. [Gazette, July 4.]

OBITUARY.

MR. THOMAS CAMPBELL FOSTER, Q.C. Mr. Thomas Campbell Foster, Q.C., died at his residence, 30, Orsett-terrace, Hyde Park, on the 1st inst., in his seventieth year. Mr. Foster was the son of Mr. John Foster, of Leeds. He was born in 1813, and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Hilary Term, 1846. He was formerly a member of the Northern Circuit, but after the re-arrangement of the assizes in 1864 he became a member of the Midland Circuit, and he had practised on the NorthEastern Circuit since 1876. He compiled (in conjunction with Mr. Finlason) four volumes of Nisi Prius Reports, and he was for many years one of the revising barristers for the West Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. Foster received a silk gown from Lord Cairns in 1875. He had for many years a large criminal business in Yorkshire, and it may be remembered that he was the leading counsel for the Crown in the prosecution of the murderer Peace. In 1868 he unsuccessfully contested the borough of Sheffield as an independent Conservative. He was appointed recorder of Warwick in 1874, and he was a bencher of the Middle Temple. Mr. Foster's health had long been failing, and he had been compelled to relinquish his practice. He was buried on the 4th inst,

[blocks in formation]

NEW ORDERS, &c.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
CHANCERY DIVISION.-ORDER OF COURT.

Friday, the 30th day of June, Whereas the Honourable Sir Edward Fry, one of the justices of the High Court of Justice, attached to the Chancery Division of the said court, is about to proceed on circuit, and whereas it has been represented to me that the state of the business now pending before the said judge is such that provision should be made for hearing and determining during his absence causes and matters which have been assigned to and are now pending in his court. I, the Right Honourable Roundell Baron Selborne, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do therefore order that all causes and matters which have been assigned to and are now pending before the said judge be transferred on Monday, the 3rd of July, 1882, and until further order, to the Honourable Sir Edward Ebenezer Kay, one of the justices of the High Court attached to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, to be heard and disposed of by him so far and to such extent as he shall consider necessary or expedient. And this order is to be drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. SELBORNE, C.

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

AMYLINE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has fixed Monday, July 10, at 11, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator COLUMBIA MARKET CO-OPERATIVE STORES, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has, by an order dated May 10, appointed William Izard, 6, Arthur st East, to be official liquidator. Creditors are required, on or before July 27, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to the above. Monday, Oct 30 at 1, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims GREAT WESTERN (FOREST OF DEAN) COAL CONSUMERS' COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented June 26, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on July

8. Jones and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Thomas, Bristol, solicitor for the petitioner

LIBERIA LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED.-Kay, J., has, by an order dated Feb 16, appointed Edwin Banks Harding, 38, Old Jewry, to be official liquidator

NEW PENROSE TIN AND COPPER MINE COMPANY, LIMITED-Crditors are required, on or before July 23, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to John Henry Tilly, 37, Queen Victoria st. Friday, Aug 4 at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

RIO MALAGON SULPHUR, COPPER, AND SILVER MINES, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented June 28, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on July 8. Vernon and Co, Moorgate st, solicitors for the petitioner

UNITED SHEPHERDS' WHEAL ROSE, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented June 29, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on July 8. Chapman, Pancras lane, solici tor for the petitioner

WILTS AND GLOUCESTER ADVANCE AND DISCOUNT COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented June 29, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on July 8. Clarke and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Kinneir and Tombs, Swindon, solicitors for the petitioners [Gazette, June 30.1

AVONDALE PAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated June 24, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. White and Sons, Bedford row, solicitors for the petitioner

INDUSTRIAL OPERATIVE BRICKMAKING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated June 23, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Powell, Essex st, Strand, solicitor for the petitioner

UNIVERSAL STEAM TRAM CAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated June 24, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Bolton and Co, Temple gdns, solicitors for the petitioner

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

SAINT HELENS AND SUTTON VICTORIA PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Petition for winding up, presented July 3, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on July 15. Field, New inn, Strand, solicitor for the petitioner

HOUSE OF LORDS.
June 29.-Bills in Committee.

Cathedral Statutes; Lunacy Regulation Amendment.

Bills Read a Third Time. PRIVATE BILLS.-Corbett's Estate; Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway; Brighton and District Tramways; Bury and Tottington District Railway; London Riverside Fish Market.

July 30.-Bills in Committee. Justices' Jurisdiction; Local Government Provisional Orders, Nos. 9 and 11. Bills Read a Third Time.

PRIVATE BILLS.-Swansea Tramways Extension; Oxford Gas. Local Government Provisional Orders, No. 8; Lunacy Regulation Amend. ment.

July 3.-Bills Read a Second Time. PRIVATE BILLS.-Whitehaven Harbour and Dock; Accrington Improvement Blackburn Improvement; Bolton Improvement; Chadderton Im provement; Macclesfield Corporation; Manchester Corporation; Newcastle. upon-Tyne Improvement; Rotherham and Bawtry Railway; North Metro. politan Tramways; East and West Yorkshire Union Railways; West Metropolitan Tramways.

Supreme Court of Judicature Act Amendment.

Bills Read a Third Time.

PRIVATE BILLS.-Metropolitan Markets (Fish, &c.); Tottenham and Ed. monton Gas; Milford Docks; London and North-Western Railway; Taff Vale Railway; Kingsbridge and Salcombe Railway; Midland Railway.

Royal Assent.

The following Bills received the Royal Assent :-Customs and Inland Revenue Buildings (Ireland); Poor-rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, Amendment Act; Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers; Interments (felo de se); Pier and Harbours Confirmation; Local Government Boards Provisional Order Confirmation (Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings); Local Government Boards Provisional Orders Confirmation (Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10); Local Govern ment Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (Ballina and Lurgan); Land Dainage Supplemental; Artillery Ranges; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2); Edinburgh Roads; North British Railway; Northampton Waterworks; Scottish Widows' Fund; Belfast and Northern Counties Railway; Carrickfergus Harbour Junction; Newhaven Harbour; Lough Swilly Railway; Bristol Corporation of the Poor; Stroud Water; Glasgow Court. houses Amendment; Northwich Gas; Lecky and Smyth's Patent; West Lancashire Railway; Rugby Gas; Glasgow Corporation Waterworks; London and North-Western Railway (Ordsall-lane); Brighton District Tramways; East and West India Dock Company Extension; Edinburgh Street Tramways; Liverpool Tramways; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway; Metropolitan Railway; Liverpool United Gaslight Company; Exmouth Gas. July 4.-Bill Read a Second Time.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »