« PreviousContinue »
set-off they relied on ? With respect to the first question the defendants con- bale of goods purchased in consequence of an order to a London commission tended that they were accountable to Demestre & Co. alone; tbat there was merchant, is so obvious and 80 well known, that we are justified in treating it po privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and that the as a matter of law, and saying that, in the absence of evidence of an express plaintiffs had no right to sue, unless in the name of Demestre & Co. In authority to that effect, the commission agent cannot pledge his foreiga con. sopport of this contention reliance was placed on the Spanish law prevailing at stituent's credit.” This view of the law was acted upon in the two cases in Havannah, on the judgment of Lord Blackburn in Armstrong v. Stokes (L. R. L. R. 8 Q. B. already referred to. But tbeir lordsbips were not aware of any 7. Q. B. 598), and on the decisions in The Elbinger Actien Gesellschaft v. Claye authority extending this exception to the general rule to such a case as this. (L. R. 8 Q. B. 13), and The New Zealand Land Company v. Watson (29 The New Zealand Land Company v. Watson was strongly relied upon by the W. R. 694, L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 374). The Spanish Code authorized an agent defendants as an authority against the plaintiffs' right to maintain this action. to act in bis own name, relieved him from all obligation to disclose Tbat case seemed at first sight very like the present in many respects. But his principal, bound him as if he were the principal, and precluded the differences were as important as the resemblances. The authority and the principal from enforcing the contract made by the agent, unless the course of dealing in that case were different from those in the present case. In agent bad first transferred his right of action to his principal. These The New Zealand Land Company v. Watson, the plaintiffs bad consigned roles, moreover, applied to cases in which the agent was known by their goods to an English house by whom the defendants were employed, and the person dealing with him to have a principal, if the name of that prin the English house were the plaintiffs' del credere agents. Both these circumcipal was not disclosed. The defendants were aware of the Spanish law on stances were wanting in the present case. If the present plaintiffs were suing this subject, and contended that they were entitled to treat Demestre & Co. persons employed by the defendants, the decision in question would more as principals and owners of the cargo, and to ignore the plaintiffs altogether. Closely resemble tbiš than it does. The truth seemed to be that in the Nero The Spanish law appeared to the court to be a circumstance to be taken into Zealand Land Company v. Watson, the doctrine laid down in Armstrong v. account in considering the nature and extent of the authority given by the Stokes was carried one step further than it bad been before, and the present plaintiffs to Demestre & Co.; but the Spanish law was not, in the opinion defendants contended that it ought to be carried a step further still, and to be of the court, material for any other purpose. The contract between extended to cases in which an English house was employed by a foreign agent Demestre & Co. and the defendants was governed by English law, not for a foreign principal, who afterwards sued the English house. Where an Spanish, and the persons who could sue and be sued on that contract in English merchant acted as a middle-man for a foreign undisclosed principal, England must also be determined by our law, and not by the law of Spain. buying or selling through him, the person dealing with the English merchant The question to be considered was the pature and extent of Demestre & did not, prima facie, contract with the undisclosed principal, and to this extent Co.'s autbority, and the knowledge which the defendants had on that the ordinary English doctrines relating to undisclosed principals had been subject. The plaintiff's certainly authorized Demestre & Co. to sbip the gradually modified with reference to mercantile usage and convenience. But tobacco in question in their own nauer, and to consign it to the defendants their lordships were not aware that any decision went
further than this, and they for sale. The tobacco was a questionably the plaintiffs' property, and was
did not feel warranted in furtber encroaching on those doctrines. Their lordsbips to be sold on their account, and was to be insured for them as owners.
adopted the view of Lord Blackburn in L. R. 7 Q. B. 704, that it was too late Demestre & Co., were, in the opinion of the court, anthorized to receive the law was to be made to conform with foreign law in this respect it must be by
now to question the propriety of the English law on this subject. If the English proceeds of tbe sale of the goods from the defendants in the event of a Bale; but the court could not adopt the defendants' contention that Demestre legislative enactment rather than by judicial decision. The second conten& Co. bad anthority to deal with the goods as their own, nor did they in tion of the defendants was that, even if the plaintiffs were entitled to sue the fact so deal with them. When the defendants received the telegrams from defendants, the defendants were entitled to a lien or right of set-off against the Demestre & Co., and effected a provisional insurance, they did not know to plaintiffs in respect of the amount due to the defendants from Demestre & whom the cargo belonged, por for whom it was to be ingred. But, before Co. on the general balance of their accounts
. This question, whether regarded ibe 18th of September, when the policy was really effected, the defendants
as a question of lien or as a question of set-off, must again be determined by knew that Demestre & Co. were acting for some third person, alloded to English law, and, according to our law, the right of the defendants to a lien or as the "interesado,” both in shipping the goods and in ordering the set: off depended on a question of fact-viz., whether the defendants did or did insurance; and with this knowledge the defendants effected the iosor the defendants' alleged lien or right of set-off accrued. It was admitted that
not know that Demestre & Co. were acting for an undisclosed principal before ance in their own dames, for the benefit of all, persons interested. the defendants knew the plaintiffs' real position before the defendants received The provisional insurances were effected by unsigned slips in the nsual way; the proceeds of the policy, but it was contended that they had no notice of any they were in law pot binding on the underwriters, and it was impossible to treat the defendants as having effected the policies for their own benefit, or
agency when they effected the insurance, and that, consequently, they acquired for the benefit of themselves and Demestre & Co., to the exclusion of the this lien entitled the defendants to retain the proceeds of the policy. It had,
a lien on the policy for the balance due to them by Demestre & Co., and that “interesado." The jury were quite right in finding that the defendants however, already been shown that when the defendants obtained the policy on effected the insurances for the benefit of all concerned-i.e., as it turned out, the 18th of September they knew of the interesado, and that the insurance was for the benefit of the plaintiffs and of Demestre & Co. and of the defendants, for his benefit. It had also been shown that the provisional insurance made according to their respective interests in the cargo. owners of the cargo, the insurance was, consequently, for their benefit, & sub by the defendants before they bad this norice could not avail them so as to ject to the lievs, if any, of Demestre & Co. and of the defendants respec- that the lien or set-off contended for could not be maintained. The rule
put them in a better position than the policy itself. It followed, therefore, tively. The question then rose whether, by English law, the plaintiffs were entitled, as undisclosed principals, to sue the defendants for the money, they off against his principal any debt due from the agent to the person so dealing
which allowed a person who dealt with an agent not known to be such to sethad received in respect of the insurance tbus effected? The Eoglish law with him was well seuled (George v. Glagett, 2 S. L. C. 118), but it was Tes pecting undisclosed principals was well known to differ from the law of many other, if not most other, countries. Their law was similar to that of equally well settled that this rule did not apply where the person dealing with Spain. But that by our law the plaintiffs were entitled to sue the defendants the agent knew him to bare a principal, although the name of the principal under the circumstances had been long settled. That the plaintiffs could might not be disclosed. Whether the undisclosed principal carried on busisue, if they were not foreigners carrying on business abrcad, was plain from the first, the defendants relied on The New Zealand Land Company v. Watson ;
ness in this country or abroad was immaterial. Upon this point, as well as the cases collected in the notes
to Thompson v. Davenport (2 S. L. C. 390, &c., but the 'main difference between that case and the present had been already 8th ed.), and from Irvine v. Watson (28 W. R. 353, 5 Q. B. D. 102, 414). pointed out. As regarded the money sought to be set off in that case, the set But it was contended that, inasmuch as the plaintiffs were foreigners carry off was made before the plaintiffs had made any clain against the defendants; ing on business abroad, the case was different. The court was, however, while here the plaintiff's made their claim before the defendants received the unable to come to this conclusion. In the first place, Lanyon v. Blanchard (2 Camp. 596), Mann v. Forrester (4 Camp. 60), and Manns v. Henderson (1 proceeds of the policy, In The New Zealand Land Company v. Watson the East. 335), were direct auiborities in support of such an action as this. io plaintiffs sought to follow their goods and the proceeds thereof into the bands the second place, it was to be observed that this was not a case in wbich the of the defendants, and the court appeared to have thought that, although they defendants dealt with an English house acting for a foreign principal, they had been set off. It was difficult to follow this reasoning: The obu
might have followed the goods, they could not have followed the proceeds after Demestre & Co. were themselves a foreign house, and, although the defendants servations of Lord Blackburn about following goods (L. R. 7 Q. B. 606) relied upon a custom or usage of trade which, it proved, would have shown that there was no contract between the plaintiffs and the defendante, the ought to be constantly borne in mind in cases of this description. He said : alleged custom or usage was not proved. Thirdly, the defendants were
“ It is right, in order to avoid misapprehension, to say that the phrase, neither buying from oor selling to Demestre & Co. ; they were simply con
repeatedly used by the counsel for the plaintiff, that the vendor has a right to signees for sale, acting for Demestre & Co., who, as the defendants knew, such as that of Wilson v. Hart (7 L'annt. 295), to which such a phrase would
follow the goods, is, in our opinion, calculated to mislead. There are cases, were themselves acting for some third person. In these respects the case be applicable ; but those, as is pointed out in 2 Smith's Leading Cases, differed from The Elbinger Actien Gesellschaft v. Claye and Hutton v. (21. W. R. 809, L. R. 8'Q. B. 331). As regards foreigners who bought and proceed on the groand of fraud. In the absence of fraud, unless the person sold goods through English commission merchants, the law was stated by the vendor has no right to follow them. If the goods were bricks sold to a
receiving the goods is a party to the contract under wbich the goods were sold, Lord Blackburn in Ärmstrong vStokes (L. R. 7 Q. B. 505) thus : contractor he could not charge the owner of the house into which they were “ The great inconvenience that would result if there were privity of contract established between the foreign constituents of a commission merchant and the built, though he might do so if the person supposed to be the contractor home suppliers of the goods has led to a course of business, in consequence of turned our to be really agent for the owner of the house ; and the principle is which it has long been settled that a foreign constituent does not give the New Zealand Land Company's case, the inability of the plaintiff's to follow
the same in such a case as the present." Applying these observations to The commission mercbant any authority to pledge bis credit to those from whom the commissioner buys
them by bis order and on his account. It is true that their goods into the hands of the defendants and to recover them, without this was originally (and in strictness perhaps still is) a question of fact; but satisfying the defendants' lien, would seem to have followed as soon as it was the inconvenience of holding that privity of contract was established decided ihat there was no contract on which the plaintiffs could sue the between a Liverpool mercbant and the grower of every bale of cotton which is defendants. In the present case there was such a contract, and, having regard forwarded to him in consequence of his order given to a commission merchant The New Zealand Land Company's case could not be regarded as an authority
to it and to the knowledge the defendants had when they effected the iosurance, at New Orleans, or between a New York merchant and the supplier of every
in their favour. If in this case the goods had not been lost, but had been sold His lordship said that the contention of the liquidator was not well fonodel. by the defendants, and tbey bad paid Demestre & Co. before the plaintiffs re. There was no doubt but that, under the article in question, which was, in voked their authority to receive payment, suoh payment would have dis. substance, identical with the corresponding clause in table A., of the Con. charged the defendants, for the plaintiffs clearly authorized Demestre panies Act, 1862, the directors had the power to dispose of shares at a discount. & Co. to receive payment. But it was equally clear that the plaintiffs did not The conclusion which he had arrived at was fortified by a consideration of the authorize Demestre & Co. to apply the proceeds of the plaintiffs' goods in pay- provisions contained in the Companies Clauses Act, 1863. . 21, the Railway ing a debt of their own. Having regard to the authority conferred on Companies Act, 1867, s. 27, and the Companies Act, 1869, ss. 5, 6. Bat, Demestre & Co. the defendants could not bave asserted as against the plaintiffs assuming that the contract was ultrà vires, even then it must be set aside in toto; a lien on the goods or their proceeds for the general balance due from Demestre the result of which would be that the respondents would be relieved of their & Co. Nor, in the circumstances of this case, would the defendants establish shares and receive back the sums paid by them in respect of such sbares. a better title to the policy or its proceeds than they would have had to the That this must be so was shown by the observations of the Master of the Rolls goods if they bad arrived. If, when the defendants effected the insurance they in Anderson's case (L. R. 7. Ch. D. p. 75). It had been argued on behalf of had effected it for their own benefit, without notice that the goods were not the liquidator that ibe creditors bad rights apart from the company, but this Demestre & Co.'s, the defendants might bave acquired a better title to the contention could not be maintained, for the creditors could obtain nothing policy and its proceeds than they would have bad to the goods; but, as except through the company. His lordship was also of opinion tbat the agreematters stood, their lordships were unable to see any distinction between the ment in the present case was to the benefit of the creditors, and that the com. two. Looking at the case broadly, there was some inconvenience, not to say pany had acted within its powers. The summons must, therefore, be dismissed, injustice, whichever way this case was decided. On the one hand, it was not with costs.-SOLICITORS, Sharpe, Parkers, Pritchard, & Sharpe; Wynne ģ right to pay one man's debts out of another man's money, which was what the Son. defendants were seeking to do. On the other hand, it was not right to avail one's-self of another man's credit and connection, and not comply with the conditions on which that credit and connection rested, and this was what the
Costs—PETITION-SERVICE ON PERSON WHO HAS NO INTEREST -TENDER plaintiffs were seeking to do. The plaintiff-, however, never led the defend
OF SUM FOR Costs. - In a case of Somes v. Martin, before Kuy, J., on the ants to believe that the goods were Demestré & Co.'s, for, although the bills 11th inst., a question arose as to the allowance of costs to some respondents of lading were in their name, the letter which accompanied the bills of lading who had been served with a petition, but who, in the opinion of the court, informed the defendants that the goods were not Demestre & Co.'s, and were
had no interest in the subject-matter. By the will of a testator he gave a to be insured for the interesado. For the reasons above given, the plaintiffs fund to trustees on trast to pay the income to bis daughter for her life, and appeared to their lordships to be entitled to recover the £11,000, subject to the after her death the property was to be divided amongst her children after deductions which they themselves conceded ought to be made.
they arrived at the age of twenty-two years. The children mortgaged their It is expected that the defendants will appeal to the House of Lords.- interests under the will. The petition was presented by the tenant for life, SOLICITORS, Walton, Bubb, & Walton; Fresh fields f- Williams.
asking (inter alia) for a declaration wh-ther the gift to her children was or was not void for remoteness. The children's mortgagees bad obtained stop
orders on the fund, which was in court, and they were served with the peti. LIMITED COMPANY—RECTIFICATION OF REGISTER-MISREPRESENTATION- tion, wbich asked that the costs of the petitioner and all other proper parties ACQUIESCENCE-COMPANIES Act, 1862, s. 35.- In the case of In re The
to the petition might be taxed and paid out of the fand. No tender of any Globe Accidental Assurance Company (Limited), a motion was made by a
sum for costs was made to the mortga zees when they were served with the holder of 200 sbares in the company for rectification of the register of the petition. They appeared at the bearing, and admitted that the gift to the company's sbarebolders by striking out his name therefrom, and for re
children was void for remoteness, but they asked for the'r costs. Kar, J., payment to bim, with interest, of sums paid on allotment of the shares. It said that, under the circumstances, he would not deprive them of costs alto. appeared that the applioant, in January, 1881, received a prospectus of the gether, but he would allow each of them the sum of two guineas out of their company stating the capital of the company to be £1,000,000, in £1 shares, share of the fuod which the petitioner would, subject to her own life estate, with a present is de of 500,000 shares at par. It was also stated by the take by reason of the intestacy of the testator as to that fund. - Solicitors, prospectus that all fature i88nes would be at a premium, and that the Church, Prior, & Co.; Gush & Phillips; W. Tunner. igene of the 500,000 shares was made at par in order to comply with the Roles of the Stock Exchange. By a circular issued by the directors in
TRAMWAYS COMPANY – LEASE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY — AGREEMENT December, 1881, the applicant learned that the whole of the capital subsoribed
BENEFITS LEASE-STATUTORY DISCHARGE – TRAMWAYS amounted to some £12,500, of wbiob, at the date of the circular, only £5,800 Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 78) s. 19-Local Acr-LIVERPOOL TRAMWAYS had been received, and that after dedacting the preliminary expenses the Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 126). --In thcase of The Ommbus Conveyance wbole amount available for condooting tbe business of the company was Company (Limiled) v. The Liverpool United Tramways and Omnibus Company, some £1,200 or £1,300. On the 22nd of May the company was wound before Onitty, J., on the 3rd inst., the plain iffs claimed in effect the specific ap. The applicant contended that he was induced to apply for the shares performance and damages for non-performance of an a zreement entered into in the belief that the prospectus set forth that the conditions required by in the year 1873 betwe-n the plaint ffs and the defendauti' pr-de essors in the Stock Exchange for the purposes of obtaining a settling day and quota- title, by which, in the event of the conc-ssion to either party of a lease or tion would be complied with by the company, and it was also submitted running powers of or over any or all of certain train ways about to be conthat it was the daty of the directors before commencing business to structed by the Liverpool Corporation between Liverpool, Wavertree, and West bave informed the shareholders of the inadequacy of the capital Derby, it was mutua ly agreed by the parties the one to allow to the other Babscribed (Sharpley v. Louth and East Coast Railway Company, L. R. the henefit of such coocession, and to divide the profits in the proportion 2 Ch. D. 663 ; Elder v. New Zealand Land Company, W. N., 1874, theren mentioned. The pla ntiffs charged that the de'en lauts had, notwith. p. 85 ; English, &c., Rolling Stock Company, Lyon's case, 14 W. R. 720, standing he agreement, entered into au agreement for the purchas: by the 35 Beav. 646). It appeared that the applicant on the 10th of January corporation of all tramways belonging to the defendants, and for the leasing by complained to the directors and asked for the removal of his name the corporation to the defendants of the tramways to be construct:d by the and the return of his money, but they, on the 13tb, wrote absolutely declining jormer in the city of Liverpool, and that the torms of such agreement had to entertaio the proposal. Three months afterwards the present proceedings b-en carried out by means of the Liverpool Tramways Act, 1880, in which were commenced. Chitty, J., said that the only tenable ground of the was inserted a clauze (section 46) providing that as soou as the tranways application was that the company bad commenced business with an is authorized to be constructed by the local board of West Derby Baiboieot capital. The applicant was, bowever, at least after the allotment should be completed the local board should lease the of the sbares, bound to peruse the artioles of association of the company, the deleodan's for twenty-one years to be worked in conjunction whion would have given him notice of the power of the directors to with the tramways in city of Liverpool. The defendants commence business at any time after the incorporation of the company, not. demurred to the plaintiffs' s'atement of claim, principally on the ground that withstanding that the whole capital proposed by the prospectus bad not the Act of 1880, and the Tramways Act of 1870, rendered the agreement of been subscribed. The prospectus bad not deceived the applicant, and the 1878 incapable of being carried into effect. Chitty, J., said that the question mulion failed so far as it was grounded on misrepresentation. The delay turned on the true construction aod effect of the special Act-viz., the of the plaintiff in commencing these proceedings was also fatal to it's Liverpool Tramways Act, 1880, and the general public Act-viz., the 'framways 81ccess. The motion must be refused with costs.-SOLICITORS, Johnsons, Act, 1870. The principle ibat a contracting party was discharged from bis Upton, Budd, $ Atkey ; Galmoy of Co.
agreement and the consequences of non-performance by a subsequent Act of Parliainent which put performance out
of bis power
estahlished by the judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench io Bayley LIMITED COMPANY—Iscrease of Capital-SHARES ISSUED at Discount v. De Crespigny (17 W. R. 494, L. R. 4 Q. B. 180), and of the -COMPANIES Act, 1862, scued. 1, TABLE A., Art. 27.-- In the case of In Courts of Com non Pleas and Exchequer Chambers in Brown re The Ince Hall Rolling Mills Company (Limited), also before Chitty, J., on Mayor of London (9 C. B. N. §. 726, and 13 C. B. N. S. 831), the 11th inst., an adjourned summons was heard, asking that certain share and it bad been laid down that when powers and duties were conferred by holders wbo bad applied for and been allotted shares issued by the directors at Act of Parliament affecting the rights and interests of the public, these a discount of £1 per sbars, might be ordered to pay that sum on each such powers and duties could be exercised only by the persons or bodies on wbom share, on the ground that the contract to issue shares at n discount was ultrà they were specially conferred. They could
not be delegated nor transferred vires. It appeared that one of the articles of association of the company pro- (Gardner v. London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, 15 W. R. 325, vided that, subject to any direction to the contrary that might be given by the L. R 2 Cb. 201, per Cairns, L.)., W. R. p. 328, Aod L. R.'p. 212). That meeting sancti ning an increase of capital of the company, all new shares this was so was not denied on the part of the plaintiffs, but they contended that should be offered to the members in proportion to the existing shares held by the effect of the Acts of 1880 and 1870 was to vest in the defendants : them, and, in the event of any such shares having been offered and declined, property which was capable of being assigned and dealt with by them the directors might dispose of ihe same in such manner as they thought most according to the provisions of the agreement of 1878. In dealing with this beneficial to the
company. In pur-uance of this article, the directors issued proposition, regard must be had to the decision of the present Master of the the shares in question to the respondents at a discount of £1 per £10 share. Rolls in Mulliner v. The Midland Railway Company (29 W. R. 330, L. R.
11 Ch. D. 611), in wbich he held that a railway company had no power to the individual defendants, without costs.-SOLICITORS, Wilkinson & Drew; R. alienate any portion of land actually used for the purposes of the undertaking, Chapman ; J. Harrison. there staring a principle applicable not merely to railways, but to undertakings of a similar anture. The analogy between railways and tramways, which
SURETY-DISCHARGE BY CREDITOR-OMISSION OF CREDITOR TO CALL ON were both parliamentary undertakings, was obvious, although there was a distinction between railways and tramways, which was perhaps in favour of
PRINCIPAL DEBTOR TO ACCOUNT-COLLECTOR OF PARISH Rates-RefereeThe defendaots' contention-namely, that tramways were for the most part
REFERENCE FOR TRIAL-PoweR OF COURT TO GO BEHIND FINDING -JUDICAconstructed on public highways. The Act of 1880 pot reciting the agree
TURE ACT, 1873, ss. 57, 58.-In a case of The Guardians of the Mansfield ment of 1878 (which was stipulated by the agreement itself should be kept Union . Wright, before the Court of Appeal on the 6th inst., the question secret), it was useless to consider how the agreement would have been dealt
arose whether a surety for a collector of poor rates had been discharged by the with by the Legislature if it had been disclosed. The Act itself contem. negligence of the guardians by whom the collector had been appointed, or of plated the working of the tramways by the defendants, and section 46 the overseers of the parish. And there was the further question whether the especially provided that the corporation should lease the tramways to the Judicature Act of 1873, issues of fact in an action have been referred for trial.
court can go behind the finding of a referee to whom, under section 57 of the defendants' company. Moreover, various provisions of the general Act of The plaintiffs appointed one Carter to be a collector of rates for the relief of 1870 were incorporated in the special Act of 1880, including the powers of the poor in a parish within their union. Carter, with the defendant and one the local authority under section 19 of the general Act to lease a tramway Radford as his sureties, executed a joint and several bond for £100 to the completed or acquired by them to a person, corporation, or company, with the consent and approval of the Board of Trade, and subject to the guardians, the condition of the bond being that, if Carter should doly, faithprovisions of the Act. The only powers of leasing contained in the fully, and honestly perform the duties of his office of collector, should
diligently general Act were conferred by section 19, but the conclusion his collect the rates, and duly, punctually, and correctly account to the person or lordship bad.come to, after considering the terms of the Act and its persons lawfully entitled to require him so to account for all moneys from policy as derived from its provisions, and particularly from the special and
time to time collected or received by him in virtue of his office limited powers which the Act conferred, and the duties which it imposed for
behalf of the parish, and should from time to time pay to the the protection of the public, was that no power of alienation was conferred on
person or persons lawfully entitled to receive the same all moneys so collected the promoters except tbose special powers of leasing which, bowever, were
or received by bim, and should otherwise duly perform certain duties in convested, not in the promoters generally, but in the local authorities, and there remain in full force. The plaintiffs alleged that Carter did not properly
nection with bis office, the bond shonld be void, but otherwise should fore that it was ultra vires on the part of such lessees, on whom various statu. tory duties and liabilities were imposed, to part with or delegate their statu
account for the moneys which he received as collector, but that he appropriated tory rights and powers. Nor could any distinction material to the question
to his own use and failed to account for sums amounting to not less than before the court be drawn between the leases under the 19th section of the £84 9s. 6d., and that he ultimately abscoaded, and had failed to perform the general Act and the leases to be granted under the special Act. His lordsbip doties of his office in accordance with the conditions of the bond. The plaintherefore beld that the defendants were incapacitated by Act of Parliament £84 99. 6d., the amount embezzled by the collector, and paid that sum into
tiffs claimed £100. The defendant admitted bis liability to the extent of from performing the agreement of 1878, and, consequently, excused in law court, but denied any further liability. The plaintiffs afterwards amended from all liability in respect of the agreement. The demurrer must therefore their statement of claim, and alleged that Carter did not diligently collect rates be allowed with the usual consequences. -Solicitors, Layton & Jaques, for Radcliffe, Layton, & Steel, Liverpool ; G. L. P. Eyre f: Co., for Garrett $ damage, in addition to the loss of the £84 93. 6d., to the extent of at least
which it was his duty to collect, and that the plajotiffs bad thereby suffered Tarbei, Liverpool.
£15 108. 6d., poor rates to that amount, at least, which ought to have been
collected, not having been received by the plaintiffs, and having become irreMETROPOLITAN VESTRY - IMPROPER EXPENDITURB OF RATES-INJUNCTION coverable. The defendant, by his amended state pent of defence, suid that the - PARTIES TO ACTION FOR Costs ONLY-METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT plaiotiffs were guilty of laches in allowing the to remain Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120).-In a case of The Attorney-General v. uncollected, and that he consequently discharged from bis The Vestry of Bermondsey, before Fry, J., on the 1st inst., a question arose suretyship beyond the paid into coart. The action came as to the making parties to an action persons agaiost whom no relief could be on for trial before Watkin Williams, J., when an order was made, with obtained, merely for the purpose of obtaining costs from them. The action the consent of the parties, that the jury should be discharged, and that the Was brought by the Attorney-General, at the relation of a ratepayer of the issues of fact in the action should be referred to a special referee to take eviparish of Bermondsey, the relator being also a co-plaintiff, against the vestry dence and report thereon to Watkin Williams, J. The referee, by his re(which was a corporate body under the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120) and six port, found that Carter did not diligently collect the rates, and that by iodividuals who were members of the vestry. The plaintiffs alleged that the reason of this damage was occasioned to the extent of at least £15 10s. 6d. in pestry intended to pay out of the parish rates the expenses of a dinner and a addition to the £84 93. 6d., and that, in consequence of Carter's neglect diliball , which had been given to celebrate the opening
of a new vestry hall, and gently to collect the rates, poor rates, amounting to not less than £15 10. 61., that this expenditure would be illegal. Resolutions authorizing this expendi- wbich Carter ought to have collected, had not been received and could not be ture had been proposed and seconded by some, and supported by others of the recovered, and so were lost to the parish. The referee farther found that, individual defendants at meetings of the vestry: The plaintiffs claimed an previously to the resignation of Carter, the overseers left the collection of the injunction to restrain the defendants from applying any portion of the rates rates to him, and did not see from time to time that he got in the arrears. in paying these expenses, and that the defendants, other than the vestry, But the referee also found that there was not any negligence or laches on the might pay the costs of the action. On a motion for an injunction against part of the plaintiffs in respect of the collection of the rates or otherwise. the vestry they submitted to a perpetual injunction, without costs, which Upon this report Watkin Williams, J., held that the plaintiffs were enwere not asked against them. Tbe other defendants delivered no statement of titled to recover, and that the verdict and judgment must be eatered for them. defence, and the action afterwards came on as against them on a motion for The defendant appealed as to the £15 103. 61. On the appeal it was urged judgment in default of pleading. It was contended that they ought to be that the guardians could only sue as trustees for the overseers of the parish, ordered to pay the costs of the action, as they had induced the vestry to resolve and that they stood in the same position as the overseers would stand if the on the improper expenditure, and, if they did not pay the costs, the plaintiff, action was brought by them. If the overseers had done their daty in seeing being a ratepager, would have to bear bis proportion of them. Reliance was that the collector took steps to compel the payment of the outstanding arrears, placed on the case of Attorney-General v. Compton (1 Y. & C. Ch. 417). the loss would not bave occurred, and this default had discharged ibe surety. FRY, J., said that there was no allegation of any intention on the part of It was also urged that on such an order of reference the court bad power to go the individual defendants to do anything wrong. That allegation was con. bebind the finding of the referee on the facts, and to investigate the evidence. fined to the vestry, and this was quite proper, for, except as forming part of the court (Jessel, M.R., Sir James Hannen, and LINDLEY, L.J.) affirmed the majority, the individual vestrymen would have no control over the funds the decision. JESSEL, M.R., said tbat the first answer to the appellant's case of the vestry. There was, iberefore, no allegation which could support an was that the referee's report had found the facts against him. It found that injunction as against the individual defendants. Could then any relief be the loss bad been occasioned by the default of the collector, and the court granted against them in the shape of payment of costs? They were not could not go bebiod that finding. The reference was made, under section 57 brought before the court as sureties for the payment of costs by the prior of the Judicature Act of 1873, to the referee for trial of the issues, and his cipal defendants, but as primarily liable to pay costs, and no other relief was report bad the effact of the verdict of a jury. The suggestion that the asked against them. As a general rule, persons could not be made parties to guardians stood in the same position as the overseers was not sound in law. an action simply for the purpose of making them pay costs. Could this be of course the persons who would really lose the money would be the ratedone because the plaintiff might say that, as a ratepayer, he would be injured payers, and it was well understood by persons who entered into bonds of this kind if the vestry had to pay costs out of the rates ? It might be that if the that the measure of damages was, not the loss to the guardians, but the loss to the vestry had been ordered to pay any costs they could have recovered them from ratepayers. The guardians were not suing for the benefit of the overseers. the individual defendants who had led them astray. But there could be no If this point failed, the appeal failed. But his lordship thought that, even if the sach right of indemnity when the restry had not been ordered to pay any overseers had been the plaintiffs, the result would have been the same, for the costs. And, if there was any such right of indemnity, it would be in the authorities showed that the mera neglect or omission of an employer to call on vestry, not in the plaintiff. In the absence of any collasion, no individual bis servant to account would not discharge the servant's surety. Sir JAMES ratepayer would have such a right. I'here was no ground for granting any Hannen was of opinion that the guardians were not responsible for the acts relief against the individual defendants by way either of injunction or costs. of the overseers. In order to discharge the sgrety some default of the plaio. Attorney-General v. Compton was distinguishable, because there the in- tiffs themselves must be shown, and the referee had found that they had not dividual corporators had so far led the corporation astray that th-y had paid been guilty of any laches. That finding could not now be disous-ed, for it money improperly out of their coffers, and this money had to be recouped by stood on the saine footing as the fiading of a jury, and was binding on the somebody, and the individual defendants were ordered to repay it. But that court. Whether, if the action had been brought by the overseer“, their laches was in no way parallel to the present case, in which no muney had been would have been an answer, his lordship would not say, for the fac's were not paid away by the corporation, and no money, therefore, had to be paid back. before the court, and he desired not to prejudice that question. The authoriBut the plaintiffs could not be ordered to pay the costs of the defendants, who ties plaioly sbowed that the mere passive inactivity of the employer would were the authors of the mischief, and the action must be dismissed as against not discharge the surety of the servant, but that å neglect of duty by the employer might be set up as a defence by the surety. And, if it could be Mr. E. KIMBER, after an allusion ta the value of the time of those present shown that the overeeers bad neglected some duty which was imposed on them at that particolar boor of the day, expressed bis surprise that the connoil, by statu'e, his Jordship thought that, if they had been plaintiffs, the case in their report, bad made do allusion to tbe important Bill which was before might have teen brought within the authority of Watts v. Shuttleworth (5 tbe House of Lords, and upon which there had been a discussion the previous H. & N. 235). But there was no evidence on this point, and his lordship night in committee. He had spoken to many members of the profession on resied bis judgment on this, that the guardians were not responsible for any the subject, who had expressed but one opinion as to judges of coorts of neglect of juty by the orerseers. LINDLEY, L.J., thought it was a mistake to first instance being permitted to sit in courts of appeal. He protested treat the guardians as trustees for the overseers. They were, in substance, against any legislation on such a subject without the great body of solicitors suing on bebalf of the parish. On the other point his lordship would say being first congolted. He believed the majority of the solicitors were nothing, because he was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts.-SOLICITORS, distinctly of opinion that po jadge of first instance should be allowed to sit Stevens & Co.; Hardisty & Rhodes.
upon an appeal. If the society was not of tbat opinion, be was satisfied the legal press was, and, so far as be could gather, the publio. That was one meardre the council might very well have represented to tbe Lord Obancellor and Lord Cairns. Then there was not the slightest reference in the report
as to keeping more taxing masters at work during the vacation. Under the SOCIETIES.
present state of things there was no certainty whatever-bowever diligent a solicitor might have been in getting up his case-that, when he went to the
taxing master's office with bis bill, be could get an appointment before INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
November. With regard to the Supreme Court of Judicatore Act, 1881, the The anpual general meeting of the Incorporated Law Society was held at council told them that "the amendments introduced into the Bill were their hall, Chancery-lane, on Friday, the 7th inst., Mr. C. C. Druce, the presi- designed for the purpose of providing for this contingency.” He thought dent, occupying the cbair.
the members might have been informed what those amendments were. Mr. Thomas Paine was elected president, Mr. E. J. Bristow vice-president,
Then they stated that they had requested Mr. Gregory to move amendments and Mr. S. Whitebead, Mr. A. G. Parson, and Mr. J. H. Schröder auditors to the Conveyancing Bill in committee of the House of Commons. He of the society's accounts for the ensning year.
thougbt it wonld be of more advantage to the society if Mr. Gregory were The following gentlemen, who had already been nominated as candidates for to attend their general meetings now and then, and to enligbten them as the vacancies on the council caused by the death of Mr. F. C. Ouvry and the to what went on in Parliamen', and ask their opinion upon the questions retirement of ten members who, under the bye-laws, went out of office in rota. of the day affecting the legal profession. Again, the 12th bye-law provided tion, but were eligible for re-election, were formally proposed and seconded :- that a list of the council, showing the nomber of their attendances at the Mr. J. Hunter, Mr. N. T. Lawrence, Mr. A. S. Munn, Mr. R. R. Dees, Mr. coupoil and committee meetings, shoold be left in the secretary's office for T. Paine, Mr. R. Conliffe, Mr. W. Melmoth Walters, Mr. J. Dodds, M.P., the inspection of members, in order that they might see with what diligence Mr. J. V. Lorgbourne, Mr. J. Addison, Mr. C. 0. Druce, Mr. E. J. Bristow, they had conducted their affairs, Ho hoped that in the next report there and Mr. E. Kimber.
would appear a list of the attendances at full length. Theo, with regard Mr. Paterson, who was one of the retiring members, did not offer himself for to the Copybold Epfranchisement Bill, be thought the council had re-election.
taken rather à partial view of the measure. They stated that the As there were thirteen candidates for the eleven vacancies, it became neces- Bill contained a clause confiscating the lords' rights of obase and warren, gary, under the bye-laws, that a ballot should be taken, and the chairman piecarier, and other rights of hunting, shooting, and fisbing, without com. Appointed the 3rd of Auguet for the scratineers to bring up their report. Mr. pensation. He would like to know how the Bill dealt with copyholders' Day, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Osbaldeston, Mr. A. J. Finoh, and Mr. Gribble con- rights, and the opinion of the council on that question. Taey simply said, sented to act as scrutineers.
“ The council agree that these rights, except those relating to fisheries and The accounts of receipts and disbursements for the past year, which was fishing, should be included in all enfranchisements, but they think that the taken as read, was approved and adopted.
lord should be entitled to compensation.". But there were other persons with The Chairman: We have now reached the serious business of the meet those rights, besides the lords, who might be entitled to compensation. Tben, ing, and it is my duty, in the usual course, to move that the annual report be with regard to the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) received, approved, and entered on the minutes. It has already been circulated Bill, they told the members that “under the existing law a person can be amongst you, and the usual course at these meetings is to take it as read. reported without previous notice or without being heard." This was rather But I should wish, before that course is adopted, to refer for a moment to the too sweeping an observation. So far as he bad been able to look into the part of it which relates to the remuneration of solicitors. The statement reports of the commissioners, be had been unable to find the name of a single which there appears was as complete as we could make it up to the time of person who had been reported guilty of bribery or corrupt practic?s unless he going to press ; but within the last few days—that is to say, on Tuesday last- had been heard in some way or another. Many of the witnesses had been we received from the Lord Chancellor a draft of the proposed order. It heard at great length, and with exemplary patience, throughout the comwas sent to us, as members of the council, under the provisions of the Act of mission, and he scarcely coincided with the council when they said, “On the Parliament, without any special reservation or secrecy. But I have had a ground of public policy this privilege sbould also be accorded, because, when telegram from the Leeds Law Society, which stated that my colleague, Mr. Har the client has found that his seat is gone, be cares but litle about the convey, bad received an intimation that he was not to circulate it. I believe that stituency, and may be willing to tell the commissioners, through his solicitor, that to some extent origioated in a mistake, bat, however that may be, I wish to all be knows. The solicitor, having once obtained information under the give all effect to any wish of the Lord Chancellor, however expressed. pledge of confidence, should not be compelled to disclose it." Let them think Therefore we are ratber abstaining from dealing with it at this meeting. I under what circumstances the solicitor was employed by the candidate. He cannot tell you that it is satisfactory. I think it probable that the council
, doubted very much whether the solicitor was under the pledge of confidence. who will meet early next week to consider the subject, may consider it right The relation was vastly different from the ordinary relation of solicitor and client, to draw up and send in some observations on the subject, but at present the There were no secrets that had to be kept. (Laughter.] The laughter convinced matter is undecided. I cannot think that any useful purpose can be him that there were some secrets wbich, in the opinion of some, ought to be kept, answered by discussing it now, and I think I must ask the meeting to leave or were generally kept; but, in his humble opinion, they never ought to be it in the hands of those who have for so long done their best to serve them kept. There ooght to be no secrets, wbatever, about the candidature of an well and faithfully.
individual for parliamentary honours. It was not as if he were a party to Mr. J. M. CLABON observed, with regard to the portion of the report refer: litigation, or were being attacked with regard to his character or property. ing to the new Law Courts, that be bad,
within the last fortnight, inspected such He put himself before his constituency, and said, “Here am I ; I am ready to of the courts as were completed, and might state generally that the resolt was tell you the whole of my life. Judge of me what I am !" If there was very satisfactory. The objectionable" well” had absolutely disappeared, anything to conceal, it must be something against the man, and, if anything and there was, in all the courts, a very comfortable table for solicitors, of that kind was divulged to a solicitor under a pledge of confidence, it was an which extended the whole lengtb of the seats set apart for the accommodation unjust
, immoral, and oprighteous act. The pledge ought not to be kept. He of the bar. A comfortable seat was also provided, and the space between the had never found the commissioners put this measure of privilege in the way of registrars' table and the Queen's Coupsels benches had been considerably in answering questions. He thought, therefore, the council were wrong in creased at the suggestion of the council
. In the common law courts the table coming to the conclusion that a solicitor, in such a position, had obtained was so placed that the solicitors sat with their backs to the Queen's Counsel, information under the pledge of confidence. But this was vastly different from but in the chancery courts they sat with their backs to the judge. He had the conclusion the council had rightly come to with regard to the paragraph been told that that was done designedly, bot, in bis opinion, in all cases the which stated tlat "some of the commissioners stringently examined solicitors stat orght to be placed under the Queen's Counsel. The arrangements could concerned in election petitions as to their acts up to the moment of their not, however, be altered at present, but if, by-and-bye, the solicitors found entering the barristers consultation room." There the council were quite they did not like their seats under the registrar, the council could make their right in protesting against the examination of a solicitor, because, from the representations in the proper quarter, and there could be but litile difficulty moment he was employed by a candidate, either to prosecute or defend, he was in making the cbange.
entitled to plead privilege, but not before, and from that moment he ought to Mr. RUBENSTEIN observed that no provision was made for the accommoda- be protected. tion of solicitors opteide the court.
Mr. F. K. Munton thoaght that as the subject of legal procedure was Mr. CLABON replied that the subject bad pot escaped him. He bad bad a under discussion it would be convenient for bim to at once make his observa; conversation with Mr. Pennington on the subject, and he entirely believed tions. He bad given notice of a motion, as follows :—"That, having regard that Mr. Peppington would obtain for the solicitors accommodation apart to the frequent and sometimes inconvenient changes of practice in the courts from that provided in the room in which the clerks meet.
and offices, it is desirable that the council should nominate, from the body of The CHAIRMAN remarked, with regard to the hour of meeting, that this the society, under proper regulations, a permanent committee of fitteen subject
had been referred to the council to consider, and they still thought members actively engaged in contentious work, such committee to be em. two o'clock the most convenient time. He moved that the aunnal report be powered to watch these and kindred matters
, and take and receive evidence received and entered on the minutes.
from the profession, with the view of reporting from time to time modifications or improvements in practice to be submitted by the council (should they the purpose of studying them. He did not wish to turn them out of the think fit) to the Lord Chancellor or other controlling official.”. This motion institution, but be thought the members sbould have the paramount right materially affected the question of legal procedure. It would be admitted of accorn modation. He had visited the library of Lincolo’s-ind, which that the giving to a committee of the members the consideration of the legal would compare favourably with their own in many ro-poots. procedure bad worked well, and he thought it would also be agreed that Mr. PAILLIMORE regretted that the council should find it necessary to there were several measures in connection with legal procedure which still close the library for the purpose of the examinations eight or ten times in required attention. He would first allude to the scandal--for it was nothing the year for two days and upwards at a time. He sabmitted that they else-of the condition of the cause lists, both at Westminster and at Lincoln's- were aoting in excess of their powers in so doing. The society bad plenty inn. It was impossible to ascertain whether there would be one court or six of money in band, and received upwards of £10,000 a yoar from the artioled courts sit:ing, or one judge or six judges ready to hear nisi prius causes. clerks, and they might bire a proper place for the examinations. He did They heard judges state from the bench that, in consequence of the ignorance not see why a small room should not be appropriated as a separate library of somebody-he (Mr. Munton) presumed the solicitors—it was erroneously for the use of the articled olerks. He moved an amendment to the report assumed that there were difficulties in the way of getting trials carried out. to the effect that the council expressed regret that they were compelled to He ventured to appeal to anyone engaged in common law and contentious close the library on so many occasions during the previous year, and that business as to what was the present state of things at Westminster Hall. It they hoped to make arrangements which would obviate the necessity of was almost impossible to arrive at any kind of satisfactory conclusion as to when such a coorse in the future. they could get a cause heard after it was entered, and that was one of the
Mr. J. E. Fox seconded the amendment. He contended that, under the reasons why, comparatively speaking, so few causes were entered there. He bye-laws, the council were compelled to keep the library open on every day would appeal especially to solicitors dealing with commercial cases to bear except the public holidays, and spoke of the great inconvenience caused to him out when he said that they were prepared to adopt almost any course and to sacrifice almost anything in order that they might avoid going into
members by its being so frequently closed. Westminster Hall for trying a cauga, They could scarcely ever reckon upon
Mr. R. P. MACARTHUR soggested that the site of apartments which
were granted to the club free of cost should be used for the examinations, finding the counsel, and if they found the counsel there was a difficulty in
and thas the inconvenience caused by the closing of the library would be finding the court. He saw that within the last three days an announcement
avoided. had appeared in the newspapers, in the official list of causes to be heard, which ought at once to be taken ap by the council on behalf of the society: bad conduced materially to the welfare of the society. Many members had
Mr. W. MELMOTII WALTERS considered the club as an institution which They had been accustomed to the farce for several days of the announcement joined the society simply that they might become members of the olab that Mr. Justice A. would take certain B. in the court of Mr. Justice 0. That was confusing in itself
, The closing of the library was a measure of necessity, and was done in but that had been entirely capped by the statemeat in the official accordance with the power given to the council onder the bye-laws. They potice of Monday morning – Mr. Justice Field will try the follow. could not send the students out to be examined at taverns or other places. ing causes with witnesses (naming five or six causes) to-day or to
The subject had been considered from time to time seriously by morrow! Just let them imagine the state of things when a solioitor has a
the co oboil, and plans had been prepared for making very sabstantial im number of witnesses. It was an absolate disgrace, and onght to be remedied. provements, but ihey had recently bad news of the death of their architect And yet when solicitors went before the taxing masters constant remarks and he was afraid there were circumstances wbich would interfere with the were made about the great expense of trials. Anyone who would take the carrying out of the plans at present, except at a very serious cost. Still, if trouble to look at the list in the Times newspaper, and see the extraordinary the council thought they saw a way of spending the money remuneratively number of times in wbich cases appeared day after day, with occasional they would do so, and they would necessarily consult the members before sudden jamps of perhaps a week without being heard, would see that they taking a step which would involve so large an expenditure. If the plans bad arrived at å state of things which never ought to have occurred.
could be carried out, there would be ample accommodation both for the Another measure which seemed to reqaire grave consideration was the
members and the students. If they would look at the balance-sheets they condition of affairs with sheriffs and their officers. This might not be an
would find that considerable sums of money were spent by the council in important question to every member present, but he ventared to say that providing books for the library. The present balance sheet showed 5417 there existed no more disgraceful state of things in the legal profession than
for the purchase of books, and, as a law library, he thought it compared the way in whiob, as a whole, executions were levied by the under-sheriffs favourably with most other libraries in London. They were limited in and their officers, and the mode in which they assessed their fees, and the space, and the great difficulty they had to contend with was the arrangedelays there were in executing the writs, and, worse still, the delays in
ment of accommodation for the students; but this was dealt with in the getting the money, after they were executed. He had expressed his views plans to which he had referred, and if the members said the council were to of it by recently bringing an action against a prominent sheriff of a home spend the money they were willing to do so. At the present moment, I county, and he had recovered damages from that sheriff for his baving however, they had a good library, and a librarian well fitted for his post, detained his (Mr. Monton's) client's money for six or seven weeks after be
and wbo bad given every satisfaction to the library committee. or his officer bad obtained it. These observations would apply to the bailiffs
The amendment was pat, and negatived by a large majority. of the county courts, and he had resolved, so far as it lay in his power, to
Mr. Dalton J. Miller moved a resolation of which he had given notice, pat his foot upon this state of things, and he wonld bring an action in baving for its object the amendment of the bye-law governing the election every case where he had reason to believe the officer of the county coart by ballot of members of the council
, so as to make it necessary for the or the sheriff had obtained the money and was retaining it from his client, secretary to forward to each member with the voting-paper a printed list of even if he (Mr. Munton) had to pay the costs himself. He bad a case in
the attendances of the various members of the council during the past which he had written to the baliff of a county coart, who had replied that: list in the hall of the society, was quite useless, as soarcely any of the
year. He observed that the present practice, which was to post such a inasmuch as the defendant was in soob and such a position, he bad thought
members saw it. it not advisable to press him. He (Mr. Munton) at once wrote to the judge
Mr. HARGREAVES seconded the motion. to the effect tbat it was now to bim for any bailiff to sit as judge and give time to the defendant. That had very soon brought him the bailiff's levy number of members on the council. It was their practice to make the first
The CHAIRMAN remarked, on behalf of the council, that there were a large and costs. It might be that when the meabers had a complete statement for those who were dealing with the legal procedure roles some of these meeting in each month a special meeting, at which a larger attendance than measgres might be dealt with, and therefore he had put bis motion upon the
usual was expected, both of town and conntry members, but they did not find
that they got through more business on those days when they had a large paper. He did not, however, propose to press his motion, and for the fol
attendance than at the other meetioz when, perhaps, only half the number lowing reasons : whilst he thought that all would agree with him, and these measures required consideration, and that they would perhaps be better con.
were present. If they had any measure before them of special interest they sidered in the first instance by a committee of the members who were engaged always took care to secure the attendance of the members who would be the
more useful in dealing with that particular subject. He thought it would be in contentious business, aod whoge opinion, if expressed with due con. sideration, would be listened to by the members of the council, yet he did highly invidious to print the names as suggested.
Mr. WALTERS contended that it was not tair to contrast the attendance of pot press the motion, because he hoped to be able to enlist the attention of
members who, like bimself, had offices close to the institution with the at least fourteen or fifteen members who were engaged in contentious business attendance of gentlemen like Mr. Dodds for instance, who resided at Stockton. who would take up the measure and report to the council; and if it should on-Tees, or of Mr. Gregory, who had his duties to perforın at the House of turn out that the work thrown upon such a committee is shown to be of Commons, or of Mr. Druce, who had to come from the City. It would be such a character that it might very reasonably be in some way formally most misleading to the country members, who would know nothing of this. adopted by the connoil, he would ask the council to give their opinion thereon There were a great many members they were most anxious to retaia on the at the next eponal meeting.
council who could only attend once a month. They wanted to retain the Mr. F. R. PARKER expressed his great disappointment that the coupoil services of their past presidents
, whose experience, judgment, and advice they bad not been able in their report to make some better statement with would be extremely sorry to lose, and the value of their services could not be regard to the library. It contained merely a record of the independent calculated by the number of their attendances. exertions of independent members, and there was no contribation by the Mr. A. E. FINCH thought the information given by such a list would be coupoil towards that important part of their institution. In his opinion, the in the highest degree misleading. He knew some of the members of the library was unworthy of the society, and, if it were made more what it council who did the greater part of the work, and their attendances were by no should be, it would doubtless be the means of attracting to the society a means the most numeroas. Many of the older members had grined so much large number of members. The Law Courts would shortly be opened, and experience that a single attendance on their part was worth a dozea of some of they ought to look to the large number of solicitors who would be brought the other members. to the courts for an inorease in their members. The library was becoming The motion was negativel. more and more a class-room for the students who went there to learn their Mr. D. T. MILLER then brought forward a motion, of which he had givea lessons which were to be said to their coaches on the next day. They not notice, alteriog the bye-law which provided that the ten members of the only read the books to be found in the library, bat brought their own for council who had been longest in office should go out of office on the day of th v