Page images
PDF

Peirce, Alfred Edward, New Oxford st. Engineer. Aug 10 at 3 at 41, Maiden lane,
Covent garden. Lewin and Co, Southampton st. Strand

Phillips, Arthur Robert, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Dentist. Aug 15 at 11 at office of
Winterbotham and Co, Essex pi, Cheltenham

Poffley, John, West Shefford, Berks, Carpentor. Aug 8 at 3 at Quoen's Hotel, New-
bury, Lucas, Newbury

Pool, James, Bilston, Stafford, Butcher. Aug 10 at 3 at office of Stratton, Queen Bt,
Wolverhampton

Read, Robert, Pontefract, York, Carpenter. Aug U at 12 at office of Carter and Atkin-
son, Cornmarket, Pontefract

Rees, Samuel, Swansea, Glamorgan, out of business. Aug 3 at 2 at office of Richards,
Castle sq, Swansea

Rice, William Henry, Northampton, Boot and Shoe Manufacturer. Aug 4 at 11 at Pea-
cock Hotel, Market sq, Northampton. Andrew

Roberts, Thomas Henry, Wrexham, Denbigh, Licensed Victualler. Aug 0 at 12 at office of Pierce, Regent st, Wrexham

Rogers, Henry Redan, and Isaac Baker, Hereford, Confectioners. Aug 6 at 11 at office of Wallis, St Owen st, Hereford

Scraoe, Isaac, Goldhawk rd, Shepherd's Bush, Coffee House Proprietor. Au g 17 at 4 at office of Hanson, Kingst, Cheapside. Wetherfield, King's Arms yard

Smedley, Charles, Manchester, Mantle Maker. Aug 8 at 11 at office of Lawson, Mount st, Manchester

Smith, Charles Pinney, Hudleston rd, Holloway, Clerk. Aug 9 at 2 at office of Dalton

and Jessett, St Clements House, Clement's lane, Lombard st Somerville, Benjamin, Newtown, Montgomery, Provision Dealer. Aug 4 at 3 at office

of Quilliam and Carruthors, Elliot st, Liverpool Spaul, Bartholomew William, Norwich, Marble Mason. July 31 at 12 at office of Stanley,

Bank Plain, Norwich

Spencer, Thomas, St Ives, Huntingdon, Currier. Aug 5 at 3 at office of Cranfield, the
Quay, St Ives

Spriggs, Henry, Arnesby, Leicester, Cattle Dealer. Aug 9 at 3 at office of Wright,
Belvoir st, Leicester

Tattershall, William Edward, Sheffield, Solicitor. Aug 4 at 3 at office of Clegg, Victoria

chmbrs, Figtree lane, Sheffield Thomas, David, Dowlais, Glamorgan, Grocer. Aug 5 at 11 at office of Lewis, Glcbeland

st, Merthyr Tydfil

Varley, James, Bishop Auckland, Durham, Watchmaker. Aug 11 at 11.30 at offices of
Edgar, Silver st. Bishop Auckland

Wharton, Richard George, Hulme, Lancaster, Plasterer. Aug 8 at 3.30 at offices of Whit-
worth, St James's sq, Manchester

White, Frederick White, Mendina Wharf, Brentford, Barge and Steam Launch Builder.
Aug 2 at 11 at S3, Gresham st. Scott, Cornhill

Williams, Henry Griffith, and John Thomas, Liverpool, Builders. Aug 8 at 3 at offices
of Morris and Jones, Dale st, Liverpool

[blocks in formation]

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA,

Arti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder.

Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, per. fectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children." Highly commended by the entire Medical Press.

Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas Thickened yet Weakened with starch, 4c, and In Reality Cheaper than such Mixtures.

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

Cocoatina A La Vanille is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tin packets at Is. 6d., 3s., fis. 6d., 4c, by Chemists and Grocers.

Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors,
H. SCHWEITZF.R 4 CO 10. Adam-street. London, W.C.

■WOBTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY.

JM Established 1836.

FIRE AND LIFE. AT HOME AND ABROAD.
Head Offices :—London And Aberdeen.

Fire Premiums £161,000

Life Premiums 181,000

Interest... 120,000

Accumulated Fundi £2,708,000

COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE
COMPANY.—FIRE, LIFE, MARINE.

Capital fully subscribed £2,500,000

Capital paid-up 250,000

Life Funds in Special Trust for Life Policy-
holders exceed 733,000

Total Annual Premium Income exceeds .. 1,050,000
Uhirf Offices: 19 And 20, CORNHILL, LONDON, E.C.
West End Offices: 8, PALL MALL, LONDON, S.W.

ESTABLISHED 1851.

BIRKBEOK BANK.-
Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane.
Current Accounts opened according to the usual practice
of other Bankers, and Interest allowed on the minimum
monthly balances when not drawn below £26. No com-
mission charged for keeping Accounts. The Bank alao
receives money on Deposit at Three per Cent. Interest,
repayable on demand. The Bank undertakes for its
Customers, free of charge, the custody of Deeds. Writings,
and other Securities and Valuables; the collection of
Bills of Exchange, Dividends, and Coupons ; and the
purchase and sale of Stocks and Shares. Letters of
Credit and Circular Notes issued.
A Pamphlet, with full particulars, on application.

FBANCIS RAVENSCROFT, Manager. 31st March, 1880.

LONDON GAZETTE (published by authority) and
LONDON and COUNTRY AD V E RTI8 E ME N T
OFFICE.—No. 117, CHANCERY LANE, FLEET
STREET.

HENEY GREEN, Advertisement Agent,
begs to direct the attention of the Legal Profession
to the advantages of his long experience of upwards of
thirty years, in the special insertion of all pro forma
notices, &c, and hereby solicits their continued support.—
N.B. One copy of advertisement only required, and the
trictest care and promptitude assured. Official stamped
forms for advertisement and file 9f "London Gazette"
kept. By appointment.

ESTABLISHED 1825.

HEWETSON, THEXTON, & PEART,

MANUFACTURERS AND HOUSE FURNISHERS,

200, 203, and 20», TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD, W.

Estimates and Dorians submitted free for entirely Fur-
nishing Residences, Chambers, Offices, 4c.
—PAINTING, DECORATING, 4 HOUSE REPAIRS.—

Carved Oak Furniture, Reproductions from Ancient
Designs, 4c. Bedroom Furniture, including Bedstead and
Bedding, from £7 10s. per set.

Thirty Large Show Rooms.
Hewetson, Thexton, & Peabt,

200, 203, and 204, Tottenham Court-road, London, W
N.B.—Household Furniture Warehoused or Removed
on reasonable terms

PARTRIDGE & COOPER,

LAW AND GENERAL STATIONERS,
I & 2, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, E.C.

Deeds and Writings engrossed and copied on the Premises,
with punctuality and dispatch, at the lowest seals of
charges, A good Discount allowed on agreed accounts.

LAW PRINTING.

STATEMENTS OF CLAIM AND DEFENCE, AFFI-
DAVITS, and other PLEADING, Printed at Is. per folio.
DEEDS, CONVEYANCES, MORTGAGES, 4c., Printed
in form for Registration.
Discount allowed for cash on agreed accounts.

LITHOGRAPHY.

ABSTRACTS, BRIEFS, PETITIONS, DRAFTS,
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, Lithographed
at reduced prices.
PLANS OF ESTATES, SPECIFICATIONS, BUILD-
ING SOCIETIES' DEEDS, LEASES, 4c., Lithographed
with accuracy and dispatoh.

PARCHMENT AND LEGAL PAPERS

Samples and Catalogues sent pet-free.

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

rrO BARRISTERS, SOLICITORS, and

* the Legal Profession.—Houses to be Let; rent £80 j
twenty minutes only from the Temple Station; trains
every few minutes. House contains five bed and dressing
rooms, bath room, and three reception rooms, excellent
servants' offices; small garden; gravel soil, and healthy
situation.—Apply to Messrs. Gidbs 4 Flew, Cedars Estate
Office, West Kensington Station, W.

11HE CHURCH PREFERMENT
GAZETTE for January, containing full par.
ticulars of Advowsons, Presentations, 4c, for Sale, to.
gether with useful advice to purchasers, should be
referred to by every purchaser. Edited by Mr. W.
EMERY STARK (Associate Institute of Actuaries,
F.R.U.S., 4c ).—Address (enclosing six stamps), Messrs,
W. Ekeey Siabf. 4 Co., 3, Bedford-street, Strand.

RICHARD FLINT & CO.

(Late ASH 4 FLINT), .
Stationers, Printers, Engravers, Registration Agents,
49, FLEET-STREET, LONDON, E.C. (oonw
of Serjeanta'-inn).
Annual and other Returns Stamped and File"".

AN IMPORTANT CONVENIENCE TO LAW nBlW5
AND SOLICITORS.

STEPHENS' SCARLET INK FOR STEEL PENS.

This new Ink supplies the demand contmtuUlynisde''3never before met, for a Bed Ink which is uninjorfd UT Steel or other Metallic Pens. Steel Pens left in tnu ■» for months do not impair the beauty of its colour, cor tx the Pens in the least corroded by it. The eiisung J" Inks rapidly destroy Steel Pons, and lose their red «*nr if used with other than Gold or Quill Pens. Thi« «" colour is a very rich scarlet rod of great beamy. J ■ colour of this ink is not affected by use upon paroliroe> and is consequently of great value to Sohciiori Draughtsmcn.

Sold in stone bottles, retail at Is., 2s., 3s.; and tot*;*: quarts of 40 ounces at us. eaoh. Also in glass bouw ■ Od. and Is. each.

BOLD BT ALL STATIONERS,

LONDON. AUGUST 5, 1882.

CURRENT TOPICS.

Vicb-chancellob Bacon intends to rise on Friday, the 4th inst., for the Long Vacation.

The Vacation Registrars in the Chancery Division will be Mr. Teesdale (not Mr. Fabeer, as announced last week) and Mr. Cabrington.

We Publish elsewhere the usual vacation notices. The sittings of the Vacation Judge will be held in Vice-Chancellor Hall's court, commencing on the 16th inst.

The Classification into first, second, and third class clerks which was applied some months ago to the officers in the Central Office, and in the offices of the chief clerks of the judges and of the registrars of the Chancery Division, and to some other legal departments, is about to be extended to all the officers in the Lunacy Offices, the Probate Offices, and most of the other legal offices.

Abottt A Tear ago we announced that a plan had received the sanction of the authorities whereby the greater part of the printing connected with the courts and offices, including the daily cause lists, would be done at the Royal Courts of Justice. We understand that steps are now being taken to carry this plan into effect, and that rooms have been set apart for the printing department.

We Heab that there is a probability of an attempt being made to induce the Vacation Judges to undertake the hearing of matters which have not hitherto constituted an important part of vacation business. Numerous applications have been made to the several judges of the Chancery Division for leave to have the Jiat for hearing affixed to petitions, and a large number of these petitions will be ready for hearing on the first day of the vacation sittings in court.

In The Intebest of London practitioners we may, perhaps, express a hope that the daily cause lists which are to be issued from the Royal Courts of Justice will be supplied for a moderate subscription, so that it will be possible for solicitors and counsel to obtain—say for a guinea a year—the delivery, at their offices and chambers each evening, of a complete list of the next day's causes in all the courts. There can be little doubt that, as a commercial venture, the success of the scheme will depend on a low rate of subscription being fixed.

An Active Effobt is being made to provide a memorial of the eminent services rendered to international law by the late Professor Bluntschli. It is proposed to found prizes to be awarded for publications and memoirs on subjects connected with international law, the decision of the prizes to be intrusted to the Institute of International Law and the three faculties of law to which the late professor successively belonged. Committees to carry the scheme into effect have been formed in the different European countries and in America.

The Conveyancing Bill, which will soon receive the Royal assent, has happily lost its most objectionable feature —we mean the ridiculous proposal relating to the [so-called3 protection of solicitors dispensing with investigation of title. We have shown over and over again that this provision was utterly impracticable, and we arc glad that the Select Committee of the House of Commons has once more refused to lay a trap for inconsiderate practitioners. In other respects there are one or two improvements in the Bill. A new clause (5) has been added (perhaps suggested by In re Orange, 29 W. R. 502), providing that, "on an appointment of new trustees, a separate set of trustees may be appointed for any part of the trust property held on trusts distinct from those relating to any other part, or parts, of the trust property; or, if only one trustee was originally appointed, then one separate trustee may be so appointed for the fiist-mentioned part." Another clause is intended to enable trustees to disclaim powers; and just at the close of the Bill we find slipped in another amendment of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, providing that "the right of the mortgagor, under section 15 of the Conveyancing Act of [sic] 1881, to require a mortgagee, instead of re-conveying, to assign the mortgage debt, and convey the mortgaged property to a third person, shall belong to, and be capable of being enforced by, each incumbrancer, or by the mortgagor, notwithstanding any intermediate incumbrance; but a requisition of an incumbrancer shall prevail over a requisition of the mortgagor, and, as between incumbrancers, a requisition of a prior incumbrancer shall prevail over a requisition of a subsequent incumbrancer."

We Abe Glad To Observe that the suggestion of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society with reference to acknowledgments of deeds by married women —that one commissioner, not interested in the matter, should be sufficient, instead of two, 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—has been adopted. Clause 7 of the Conveyancing Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, now runs as follows :—" In section 79 of the Fines and Recoveries Act, and section 70 of the Fines and Recoveries (Ireland) Act, there shall, by virtue of this Act, be substituted for the words, 'two of the perpetual commissioners, or two special commissioners,' the words 'one of the perpetual commissioners, or one special commissioner'; and in section 83 of the Fines and Recoveries Act, and section 74 of the Fines and Recoveries (Ireland) Act, there shall, by virtue of this Act, be substituted for the word ' persons' the word ' person,' and for the word 'commissioners ' the words 'a commissioner'; and all other provisions of those Acts, arid all other enactments having reference iu any manner to the sections aforesaid, shall be read and have effect accordingly." The effect will, of course, be to make acknowledgment before one commissioner sufficient. It is subsequently provided that where the memorandum of acknowledgment purports to be signed by a person authorized to take the acknowledgment, the deed is, as regards the execution by the married woman, to take effect at the time of the acknowledgment, " and shall be conclusively taken to have been duly acknowledged." Rules of Court are to be made for preventing any person interested or concerned, either as a party, or as solicitor, or as clerk to the solicitor for one of the parties, or otherwise, in the transaction, from taking an acknowledgment, but no deed is to be impeachable by reason only that the person taking the acknowledgment was interested.

We Publish elsewhere a letter from a correspondent, in which a claim seems to be preferred that the phrase "land of any tenure" shall be taken, not only in the interpretation clause of the Conveyancing Act, but everywhere else, to include a term of years, apparently upon the ground that it contains the word tenure. We confess that we cannot contemplate the possibility of such a claim without surprise; and it indicates, to our mind, a heavy responsibility to be incurred by modern parliamentary draftsmen, if the way in which they do their work should be found to foster such ideas. But our correspondent seems to be too hasty if he means to charge this offence against them only upon the evidence which he produces. When he says, with reference to section 23 of the Bankruptcy Act, that " these words apply to all sorts of leasehold interests in land," if by " these words " he means the words "land of any tenure," we are not at all clear that his proposition is "of course beyond doubt." No doubt that section does refer to, and include, terms of years, or " all sorts of leasehold interests in land"; but not necessarily by virtue of the words "land of any tenure." Since the section contains other phrases which are very well adapted to the purpose—for example, "any Other property that is unsaleable, or not readily saleable, by reason of its binding the possessor thereof to the performance of any onerous act "—it is quite unnecessary to pick out the inappropriate phrase "land of any tenure," and to fasten that meaning upon it. But very much better grounds could be alleged for allowing that meaning to the phrase in section 23 of the Bankruptcy Act, than are available in the case of the Conveyancing Act; because, at the time of the passing of the Bankruptcy Act, freehold lands could not, strictly speaking, be "burdened with onerous covenants"; so that those words may imply a direct suggestion of a leasehold interest, which is wanting in the other case. It, therefore, by no means follows that to allow the inappropriate meaning in the one case will oblige us to allow it in the other. Nor do we quite understand how the citation by our correspondent of the case of fix parte Allen bears upon the question. Can it be supposed to prove that even " personal chattels" are included in the phrase "land of any tenure "?

An Interesting Question, which it is very surprising should have remained so long unsettled, was decided in the case of Payne v. Lord Leconfield (30 W. R. 814). Has an auctioneer virtute officii a right to warrant the article which he is selling? Lord Leconfield sent a mare to a repository for sale, furnishing particulars which were printed in the catalogue, and which stated that the animal was a brown mare, a clever hunter, and had carried the whip. At the sale, on some remark being made that she had a running at the nostrils, the auctioneer said he should sell the mare as only having a cold. The mare was knocked down to the plaintiff and was found to be suffering from glanders. The plaintiff brought an action for breach of warranty, and the defendant denied that he had authorized the auctioneer to warrant the horse as only suffering from a cold. Bowen, J. directed a verdict for the defendant, and, on a rule for a new trial, the Divisional Court held that the auctioneer had no general authority to warrant. " An auctioneer," said Mr. Justice Grove, "is nota general agent, but is merely an agent to sell, and, as such, cannot .give a warranty without authority from the vendor; the very absence of cases on the point shows that he has not this authority virtute officii. Brady v. Todd decides that a servant intrusted with a horse to sell is not entitled to warrant it. Here, so far from there being evidence of a delegation by the vendor of authority to warrant, there is rather evidence to the contrary; for the auctioneer sent the vendor a form to be filled in with the particulars as to this mare, which he was about to sell. The vendor, accordingly, filled in this form, but only in part, and this gave the auctioneer authority to warrant the particulars enumerated by the vendor, but no others." It would be obviously hard on a vendor that he should be held responsible for anything the auctioneer might choose to say with a view to getting an article sold, but what about the purchaser who buys an article on the faith of a warranty, and finds he has only the auctioneer to go against?

tion whether and how far the law ought to interfere to punish se mean an act. It seems clear that it is not an indictable offence, but it is suggested, although we can discover no authority for the position, that an action would lie to recover the expenses of a prosecution so caused; an action, however, which, from the poverty of the delinquents, would, in most cases, be merely throwing good money after bad. Perhaps the only remedy to be found is that which is always applied by the unwillingness of all English courts to give credence to a confession; unlike the professors of the civil law, who have " attributed a peculiar value to the confessions of parties," which they pronounced a " species of proof of so clear, excellent, and transcendent a nature as to admit of no proof to the contrary" (Best on Evidence, 697). It is abundantly clear, however, that in all times and countries false confessions have been very prevalent; and there are even a few instances on record of persons having submitted to capital punishment itself rather than retract their confessions. The latest instance in this country appears to be " the celebrated case of Joan Paeet and her two sons, who were executed in the seventeenth century for the murder of a man named Harbison, who re-appeared some. time afterwards" (lb., p. 705). Ealse confessions of desertion from the army are so common that a special section of the Mutiny Acts, which re-appears in the Army Act, 1881, s. 26. has long been passed for their punishment.

The False Confession of crimes which the party has not committed has become so frequent of late that it becomes a ques

Petitioners In Divorce Suits have some reason to complain of the law's delay when the period of six months from the date of the decree nisi expires in the early part of the Long Vacation, and it is impossible to obtain a decree absolute before the following November. Last Tuesday, in the suit of Rippingall v. Bippingall and Lockhart, an application was made to Sir James Hasxes to exercise the discretion conferred upon the court by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1800 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 32), 8. 2, and to hi a shorter time for making the decree absolute. The six months' interval would expire on the 15th of August (just one week after the termination of the present sittings), and the special grounds for the application were that the case was ready for trial at the beginning of the Michaelmas Sittings of last year, but that no special jury causes were tried until Hilary Sittings. Sir J. Hajotes treated the intervention of the Long Vacation as the sole ground for making the application, and pointed out that that there were many other suitors in the same position as the present petitioner, who would have a claim to relief if the motion were to be granted. It is difficult to see why the jurisdiction to make absolute a decree nisi should not be conferred, during the vacation, upon the registrars of the Division, in cases where thg Queen's Proctor does not intervene, and where there is no unusual delay or other exceptional feature in the case.

At The Adjourned Meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, held on Thursday last, the following gentlemen were declared to be elected members of the council:—Mr. J. Hunter, Mr. N. ILawrence, Mr. R. R. Dees, Mr. T. Paine, Mr. R. Cchliffx, Mr. W. Melmoth Walters, Mr. J. Dodds, M.P., Mr. J. »• Loncbourne, Mr. J. Addison, Mr. C. C. Druce, and Mr. Bristow.

We are requested to state that the library of the Inner Temple will *• open from August 10 to 31, and from October 1 to 24, from ten to lo»r. closing at two on Saturdays; and in September it will be open from 'e° to two, and will be closed on Saturdays.

According to Kemp's Mercantile Gazttlt the number of bills of M^6 published in England and Wales for the week ending July 29 ** • J The number iu the corresponding week of last year was 1,009, ihowiof decrease of 68, being a net deorease in 1882, to date, of 1,032. The published in Ireland for the same weak was 30. The nambtr in tbe oar responding week of last year was 37, showing a decrease of 7, b ing > decrease, in 1882, to date, of 247,

INJURIOUS AFFECTION OF LAND BY OBSTRUCTION OF ACCESS.

"we recently considered the case of The Caledonian Railway Company V. Walker's Trustees (30 W. R. 569, L. R. 7 App. Ca's. 259), in its relation to the general principles regulating crises of compensation. We now propose to deal with it in relation to prior decisions.

It is a question of considerable practical, as well as theoretical, interest how far a supreme appellate tribunal—such as the House of Lords—ought to consider itself irrevocably bound by its own previous decisions. On the one hand, it would, no doubt, be productive of great mischief if the decisions of the House of Lords, upon identical facts, fluctuated from time to time according to the conclusions arrived at on each particular occasion by the members of the tribunal then present. On the other hand, difficulties do certainly arise from the operation of the rule which binds even tbe supreme tribunal by its own previous decisions. Some case of exceptional nicety—a case inter apices—arises, and the court decides one way; it is subsequently found, when it is sought to apply the principles of the decision to other somewhat different facts, that its soundness is doubtful, or that its application in many cases would produce hardship and mischief, and possibly on some slender distinction the former decision is not followed. The theory of our law which makes previous decisions binding on a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, or the same court, is undoubtedly very frequently modified or evaded in practice, but then the mischief arises that in subsequent cases falling between the two really inconsistent decisions, there is very great difficulty in determining under which authority the tribunal will bring them.

The case of The Caledonian Railway Company v. Walker's Trustees is one of a series of cases in which the difficulty to which we refer seems to have been felt, though, as we shall hereafter show, in our opinion, the decisions themselves in these cases may well stand together. In the course of the judgments in the House of Lords a great many cases are discussed, the names of which are "familiar in our ears as household words" in relation to the subject-matter involved. Indeed, the case we are discussing may be said to form the last word (if, indeed, it is the last word) In a famous controversy. The names of two of these cases will at once convey to the minds of those of our readers who are at all familiar with the subject the nature of the controversy—viz., Rieket's case {!/. R. 2 H. L. 175), and Metropolitan Board of Works v. McCarthy (L. R. 7 H. L. 243). In the latter case, when in the Exchequer Chamber, Lord Blackburn, then Blackburn, J., seems to have thought that there was in reality a conflict between the previous decision of the House of Lords in Rieket's case and the decision of the Exchequer Chamber in Chatnberlain's case (2 B. & S. CI 7), but he followed the latter case because the House of Lords did not expressly overrule it. And, again, in the case we are discussing he expressed an opinion that the decision in McCarthy's case in the House of Lords, which followed ChamlerIain's case, was irreconcileable with the decisions of the House of Lords in Oyilvy's case (2 Macq. 229) and Rieket's case. The Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment in Caledonian Railway Company v. Walker's Trustees, said: "It is your lordships' duty to maintain, as far as you possibly can, the authority of all former decisions of this House, and although late decisions may ha've interpreted and limited the application of earlier, they ought hot (without some unavoidable necessity) to be treated as conflicting." No objection can be made to this doctrine in the abstract; but reading between the lines, and as it was intended to be applied, it reads somewhat like a delicate way of deprecating his noble and learned friend Lord Blackburn's disposition to call a spade a spade. We cannot help thinking that the actual decisions are really reconcilcable, though the grounds for them may not oe. The question involved in the cases to which we have referred is, how far the interference with the access to premises') f works carried on under statutory powers is a subject of ccinbensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation. Act. In Ogifoy's case a railway was carried over the public highway close to a house, and the value of the house was no doubt deteriorated thereby. The waj^ the claim was put was, that by the constant passing of trains over the highway,

and the consequent openiug and shutting of the gates at the crossing, the access to the house was rendered difficult and less commodious. The House of Lords decided in this case against the claim for compensation. The Lord Chancellor in the case we are discussing seeks to put this decision upon the principle now well established by Brand's case (L. R. 4 H. L. 171) —viz., that damage caused by the subsequent use of the works, as distinguished from their construction, is not the subject of compensation, but Lord Blackburn pointed out that this can hardly have been the real ratio decidendi, as that distinction was hot developed till some years later. The decision really seems to have gone mainly on the ground that there would, independently of the Act authorizing the works, have been no actionable wrong, because there was no such special damage arising from the obstruction of the highway to the owner of the property as would, within the well-known doctrine on the subject, have supported a right of action. We cannot help doubting the soundness of this way of looking at the case ; but another ground was suggested, and whatever may have been the actual ground of the decision in Ogihy's case, it seems to us that it may well stand with the later decisions —viz., McCarthy's case and the case we are discussing—0:1 the following ground. It is admitted in all the cases that to give a right to compensation there must be some actionable injury to the property as such. It seems to us that somewhat the same principle applies as in the case of actions for damage to the reversion. The prospective probability that some structure or other will be used so as to be a nuisance to property did not at law give a, right of action for damage to the reversion, because there is no. in jury to the property itself. If a man built a large building for the purpose of melting tallow close to a house, and even used it so as to create a nuisance, the owner of the reversion could not sue, because the building in itself can be no actionable wrong. When it is used, a right of action for personal inconvenience to the occupier arises from time to time for each act of use, but there is no cause of action for damage to the land given by the construction. So there is no actionable injury to the land by the mere construction of the railway. This comes, perhaps, to much the same thing as the view that the compensation is confined to injury occasioned by the construction of the works, as distinguished from their use when constructed, but in any view of the case there seems no radical incompatibility between the decision in Ogilvy's case and the later decisions.

We must confess that there seems to us to be much greater difficulty in reconciling Rieket's case with McCarthy's case and the recent case which suggested these observations, but we think, nevertheless, that without any absurdity they may be reconciled. The doctrine of the later cases, as summarized in the head-note to the recent case as reported in the Law Reports (which summary again is really the definition given by Thesiger, L.J., in arguing McCarthy's case, and approved by Lord Cairns in giving judgment in that case), is that when the works as constructed interfere with the access to private property by a public highway or private way, and the value of the property, irrespective of any particular me which may be made of it, is so dependent upon the existence of that access as to be substantially diminished by its obstruction, then the owner is entitled to compensation for such interference.

The words we have italicized are substantially the same as those used by Willes, J., in Beckett's case (L. R. 3 C. f. 82), and must be taken to be intended to correspond with the ground covered by Rieket's case, and to represent the exception created by that case. We have tried very hard to apprehend clearly the reasoning upon which such an exception might rest, and we cannot honestly say we understand it. It is, of course, easy in case after case formally to distinguish Rickefs case, on the ground that in that case the property was only damaged quoad a particular special purpose, but we want to arrive at the substantial distinction. Property is not valuable except for some purpose or purposes. Value is not a general absolute quality, but involve? relation to one or more uses. We cannot see the essential distinction between " one " use and "several" uses for this purpose. In Rieket's case the property was a public-house with a skittle-alley attached, and there having been a temporary hoarding put up obstructing or interfering with the access during the construction of the works, the custom of the house fell off, and the trade was in fact destroyed or permanently damaged. It is to be observed that the obstruction there was temporary only and incidental, but hardly sufficient stress seems to us to have been laid on this on the various occasions on which the case has been discussed, though, no doubt, this distinction has been pointedly referred to. We cannot help thinking that the true view of the case principally depends on that fact. We doubt very much whether a sound distinction can be drawn with regard to the value of premises for a particular use as opposed to their value in general. But it seems to us that the true view is that, in Biclcet's case, there was no injurious affecting of the land itself. The erection of the hoarding may be likened to the temporary obstruction of the highway from time to time by the passage of trains. The owner is damaged in respect of his property, but there is no permanent injurious affection of the realty itself, immediately or mediately, through the alteration of other adjoining realty related thereto. The hoarding was probably fixed to the soil, but certainly it did not, in substance, differ in its effects from any large piece of personalty, such as a great piece of moveable machinery, which might, in the course of the construction of the works, have interfered with access to the public-house, or even from a great crowd of workmen filling up the street.

We cannot believe that the true principle is to be found in the words of Erie, J.: "The trade carried on in the house is entirely distinct from the estate in the house." No doubt, if the value of premises continues the same, though a particular trade is ruined by the construction of the works, there is no injurious affecting of the land; but we think it a very different proposition to lay down that if the value of the premises is diminished merely by reason that a particular trade cannot be carried on there, there is necessarily no right to compensation. We think that Bicket's case may still be regarded as good law, not because it was with reference to a particular use of the premises made by the owner thereof that this value was diminished, but because there really was no injurious affecting of the realty. The value of premises may be affected by something that affects the trade carried on there, but it does not follow that there is an injurious affecting of the premises themselves. For instance, suppose two or three of the customers of a public-house are robbed and murdered in an alley leading thereto. The house in consequence may get a bad name, and its trade be ruined. The actual value of the realty may thus be diminished, but no one would say that this was through anything that injuriously affected the realty. The land is affected by what is done to the trade; not the trade by what is done to the land. The temporary erection of a hoarding during works no doubt may, just as in the illustration given, affect the value of the land by affecting the trade and that permanently, but such temporary interference with the realty seems in substance not analogous to a permanent structural alteration for this purpose; it is incidental only to the execution of the works; the injurious affecting contemplated by the statute seems to be some permanent physical alteration of the realty, either immediately or mediately, by the alteration of other realty having relation thereto. It seems to us that it would be unsafe to conclude that if in Bicket's case the value of the premises had been diminished by reason of the particular trade carried on there being destroyed by a permanent interference with the access, there would have been no right of compensation. It seems to us the decisions may be reconciled on the ground of the substantial distinctions we suggest, but we abstain from expressing any opinion on the question whether they are all satisfactory in point of justice or expediency. The real secret of the difficulty which is found in the law on this subject is the substantial difficulty of reconciling the interest of the general public with that of the individual.

Mr. Thomas Hughes, Q.C., the recently appointed judge of the County Conrt Circuit No. 9, commenced his duties on Wednesday, at Nantwich. On his Honour taking his seal, Mr. Martin, on behalf of the solicitors of (ho court, congratulated him upon his appointment to the circuit. Mr. Hughes, in acknowledgment, said he shared in the general regret that was felt at the cause of Mr. Yattfc's retirement. He was much obliged for the kind words and wishes expressed by the praotitioners at the court with regard to himself, and he hoped he should be able to discharge the duties devolving upon him so as to give general satisfaction.

LEGISLATION OF THE YEAR.

GUNPOWDER IN SLATE MINES. 45 Vict. C. 3.—An Act To Amend The Law Relating To The

Use Of Gunpowder In Slate Mines. [29th March, 1882].

This Act merely gives power to a Secretary of State to exempt any slate mine (not all slate mines generally, as would appear from the incorrect marginal note), the owner or manager of which shall have made application to him in that behalf, from "the general rule contained in sub-section 2 of section 23 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872 (35 k 36 Vict. c. 77), with respect to the use of gunpowder or other explosive substances, or any portion of such rule." The sub-section in question will be found to be full and precise, directing that the explosives are not to be (a) stored in the mine, or (b) taken into the mine except in small quantities, or (c) used at one time in one place except in still smaller quantities, or (d) touched with iron or steel prickers "except in mines excepted from the operation of this section by the Secretary of State," and (e) unrammed where a charge has missed fire. The application of the owner for the exemption is to be made public in the same manner as "proposed special rules" must be published under the Mines Act—that is, by posting it conspicuously at or near the mine, and by supplying copies of it to workmen on application at the chief office. The exemptions may be revoked at any time, but the revocations are not to come into force until notice has been posted up at the mine for twenty-four hours. A list of the exemptions granted or revoked is to be set forth by the inspector of the district in his annual report. This statute and the Mines Acts may be well compared with the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, by those who are interested in observing the working of the concurrent control of Parliament and public offices over dangerous or unhealthy employments.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. 45 Vict. C. 14.—An Act To Confer Further Powers Cpoh

The Board Of Works With Respect To Streets Axd Buildings In The Metropolis. [19th June, 1882.]

This Act contains no less than twenty-seven sections, and is divided into four " parts." The amendments of the law which it contains, however, will not be found to be of a very important character. The principal provisions are as follows:—By section 5, the Metropolitan Board of Works has power to name and number streets, on default of vestries and district boards in complying with an order of the Board under section 87 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 k 19 Vict. c. 120). By section 9, the Board may annex conditions as to the space to be left open where a building is erected beyond the "general or regular line" of buildings in a street, and, after default in the fulfilling of any of such conditions, may procure an order from a justice of the peace directing the demolition of the building by the owner, and, in default of the building being demolished " within the time limited by such order," the Board may forthwith enter the premises to which the order relates and demolish the building themselves. This is a very stringent provision, and although the order may not bo made without a previous summons requiring the owner to appear, sufficient regard appears scarcely to have been had to the rights of owners, which appear to be placed under the complete discretionary control of the justices. Somewhat similar provisions arc contained in section 17 with respect to cases " where a building or structure is ruinous, or so far dilapidated as thereby to have become and to be unfit for use or occupation, or is from neglect or otherwise in a structural condition prejudicial to the property i». or to the inhabitants of, the neighbourhood," but in such cases, of course, the summary interference of the Board is almost a matter of necessity. The remaining sections of the Act extend the open space to be required to be attached to dwelling-houses (section 14); remove a restriction as to the position of hot-water pipes " in ti>Jj case of pipes for conveying hot water or steam at low pressure (section 16); make better provision for the settlement of differences between building and adjoining owners (section 21), and otherwise amend the Metropolitan Management and Building Acta m details of little consequence.

« PreviousContinue »