ABRIDGED PROSPECTUS. DOMINION OF CANADA. ISSUE OF £200,000 STERLING £5 PER CENT. MORTGAGE DEBENTURES The subscription price is par, payable as follows:Deposit on application £5 per £100 debenture. Payment on allotment 20 on 11th November, 1882.. 75 £100 Subscribers will have the option of paying in full on allotment under discount at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. The first coupon for interest at 5 per cent. on the above instalments will be pay able 1st January, 1883. The debentures will be issued (free of charge for stamp duty or commission) for sums of £100 and £500 each, and will be exchanged for the bankers' receipts as soon after the payment of the last instalment as the debentures are ready, of which due notice will be given. They are redeemable, by purchases in the open market, by a sinking fund of 2 per cent. per annum on the amount issued. If, however, the premium on the debentures is so high as to make an investment of the sinking fund more to the advantage of the association than purchasing its own debentures, any of the payments on account of the sinking fund may be temporarily invested and accumu SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY. THE ESTABLISHED 1831. HEAD OFFICE:-26, ST. ANDREW SQUARE, Edinburgh. MANAGER-T. B. SPRAGUE, M.A. Accumulated Fund £2,500,000. The Society transacts every description of LIFE IN SURANCE BUSINESS. INSURANCES AGAINST ISSUE are effected at moderate rates of premium. LOANS ON REVERSIONS. The attention of Solicitors and others desiring to raise money on Reversions is directed to this Society's improved method of making advances on this class of security, the leading feature of which is, that absolute power of redemption on fixed terms, whether the life tenant be alive or dead, is reserved to the reversioner for five years or for such other term as may be agreed. In the case of absolute reversions the redemption money is simply the accumulated amount of the advance at five per cent. compound interest. Full particulars may be obtained on application to the Society's LONDON OFFICE-69, KING WILLIAM STREET, E.C. LAW UNION FIR Chief Office-120, Chancery. FIRE and LIFE INSU lane, London, W.C. The Funds in hand and Capital subscribed amount to upwards of £1,600,000 sterling. Chairman-JAMES CUDDON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Goldsmith-building, Temple. Deputy-Chairman-C. PEMBERTON, Esq. (Lee & Pembertons), Solicitor, 44, Lincoln's-inn-fields. Every description of Fire and Life Insurance business transacted. Whole World and Unconditional Life Policies granted at a slightly increased rate of Premium. Policies of Insurance granted against the contingency of Issue at moderate rates of Premium. Advances made on Mortgage of Life Interest and Reversions, whether absolute or contingent. Prospectus, Copies of the Accounts as deposited with the Board of Trade, and every information sent on appli cation to FRANK MCGEDY, Actuary and Secretary. | ASSOCIATION. SIR FREDERICK GEORGE MILNER, BART. lated in the names of the trustees in Government securities of the United Kingdom or of Canada. The debentures constitute the first part of an authorized issue of £400,000 Series A., which, in the terms of a deed, dated 9th August, 1882, made between the association and the trustees for the debenture holders, are made a first charge upon all the assets and property of the association, including the whole uncalled share capital, amounting to 2,142,212dols. The association is by the deed restrained from issuing any further debentures to rank with those of Series A., in excess of one-half of the amount of its assets as certified in its published accounts, not including in such assets any unpaid share capital. The subscribed share capital of the association is 2 650,000dols., of which 507,788dols. has been paid up, and it has, besides, an existing reserve fund of 500,000dole. Its business consists in lending on mortgage of real estate, municipal debentures, and other solid and recognized securities; the aggregate advances of directors are men of high standing in the province, and the shareholders are a the association being spread over a very large area with an ample margin. The large and influential body. The association has from its formation paid dividends of 8 per cent. per annum in addition to accumulating a reserve fund of 500,000dols., and by the latest advices from Canada, the shares are quoted on the Canadian Stock Exchanges at 39 per cent. premium. Application for the debentures, with a deposit of £5 per £100 debenture, should be forwarded to Messrs. C. Cooper, Hall, & Co., 46, Lombard-street, London, or the National Bank of Scotland (Limited), 37, Nicholas-lane, London, or any of its branches in Scotland, of whom prospectuses and application forms can be BANKERS-London and Westminster Bank (Limited). MANAGER-Mr. Henry Fisher. The Securities upon which Advances can be obtained Loans can be made repayable either upon notice in the usual way, or at the expiration of a fixed term, or by annual instalments extending over an agreed number of years. The Directors are prepared to purchase Ground Rents. Application to be made to the Manager, at the Com. pany's Offices, 15, Great George-street, Westminster, S.W. NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY. PROVID ROVIDENT LIFE OFFICE. 50, REGENT STREET, and 14, CORNHILL, LONDON. Existing Assurances exceed Invested Funds Annual Income Claims Paid exceed.. Bonuses Declared .. During the past year (1881) each main item has shown improvement upon the preceding year. 279,852 2,121,711 2,207,986 CHARLES STEVENS, Secretary. Nominal Capital, £4,250,000. Subscribed Capital, £1,233,325. Paid-up Capital, £816,665. Reserve Fund, £460,000. allowed for Money on Deposit are as follows, viz.:- Four per Cent. at Fourteen Days' notice. ST. (T. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL The William Brown £100 and £10 Exhibitions are open to all Perpetual Students. The two Brackenbury Prizes of £30 each, Sir Charles Clarke's Prize, the Thompson Medal, the Treasurer's, Brodie, Acland, Pollock, Johnson, and General Proficiency OMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE Prizes are open to all students. COMM COMPANY.-FIRE, LIFE, MARINE. Capital fully subscribed Life Funds in Special Trust for Life Folicy. ... Total Annual Premium Income exceeds .. £2,500,000 250,000 733,000 1,050,000 CHIEF OFFICES: 19 AND 20, CORNHILL, LONDON, E.C. The appointments of House-Physician and House-Surgeon, of which there are four, tenable each for one year, are awarded by competition, and no charge is made by the Governors of the Hospital for board or residence. Clerkships and Dresserships, and all the minor appoint. ments, are given without extra fees. A prospectus of the School and further information may be obtained by personal application between 1 and 3 p.m., or by letter addressed to the DEAN at the Hospital. CURRENT TOPICS. LONDON, SEPTEMBER 23, 1882. NOTWITHSTANDING THE TRANSFER of causes to the Queen's Bench Division, which we announce elsewhere, there seems to be every probability that the Michaelmas list of causes of the Chancery Division will equal in number the unprecedently heavy list of last Michaelmas, which contained a total of 627 causes. DOUBTS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED as to whether the courts in the building of the Royal Courts of Justice will be ready for occupation in November. As regards at least ten of the courts there is no foundation for these doubts, inasmuch as the fittings are actually in place, and a few days would suffice for their completion. As regards the remaining courts active progress is being made, and there seems to be no reason why many, if not all of them, should not be ready for use by the commencement of the Michaelmas Sittings. THE MEASURE which has been in contemplation for some time for the purpose of relieving the heavy lists of the Chancery Division has now been carried into effect, an order having been made for the transfer from the Chancery Division to the Queen's Bench Division of ninety causes " commenced in the Chancery Division, but not being causes commenced for any of the purposes set forth in the 3rd sub-section of the 36th section of the Judicature Act, 1873, and thereby specially assigned to the said Division." It is understood that the number of causes originally intended to be transferred was much greater, but in consequence of the replies received to a circular sent by the Senior Registrar of the Chancery Division to the solicitor for the plaintiff in each case, many causes have been struck out of the proposed list, owing to briefs having been delivered or some other good reason having been assigned for retaining the cause in the Chancery Division. THE VARIETY OF SUGGESTIONS offered by correspondents as to the meaning of rule 11 in Schedule I. of the Remuneration Order shows the perplexity which has been occasioned by that provision. Last week the opinion was expressed that the object of the rule providing that "the scale for conducting a sale by auction shall apply only in cases where no commission is paid by the client to an auctioneer," was to be found in the words "by the client"; hence, that where the auctioneer's commission is stipulated to be paid by the purchaser the rule will not be applicable. This week a correspondent tells us that the true explanation is to be found in the word "commission"; that in Manchester and Liverpool an auctioneer is not always paid by a commission on the sum realized by the sale, but is merely paid a fee for offering the property for sale, and that the rule is intended to apply to these cases. The same view is supported by other correspondents, one of whom, whose large experience gives weight to his statement, tells us that where the auctioneer's opinion as to value is not desired, a fee of three or five guineas is accepted as sufficient payment for offering properties worth from £1,000 to £5,000. With this evidence before us we are inclined to think that we have at last arrived at the meaning of the rule. It is intended that, if the auctioneer is paid by fee instead of by commission, the vendor's solicitor shall be able to claim commission for conducting the sale. If words are to have any meaning, it would seem that such a fee cannot be held to be "commission" within the terms of the rule, although we observe that in rule 6 in Schedule I., Part I., the purchaser's solicitor's commission is spoken of as "the above fees for investigating title." But then the question arises whether it is intended that the auctioneer's fee shall be a disbursement to be allowed to the solicitor, or whether the solicitor who claims commission for conducting the sale will have to pay the auctioneer's fee out of his own pocket? As rule 4 expressly provides that "the remuneration prescribed by Schedule I. to this Order is not to include auctioneer's or valuer's charges," it seems clear that the client will have to pay the auctioneer's fee. After the Order has come into operation, therefore, vendors' solicitors will have to arrange with auctioneers for payment by fee instead of by commission. It will be interesting to see how this revolution in London practice will be worked out. Will the Council of the Incorporated Law Society enter into negotiations with the leading London auctioneers, with a view of settling a uniform scale of fees for offering properties and for valuations, or will each solicitor have to make his bargain with the auctioneer in each case? 66 "YOU CANNOT PROPERLY LOOK," observed BRAMWELL, L.J., in Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Company (L. R. 11 Ch. D. at p. 460), " at the marginal note of an Act of Parliament." "What authority has the Master of the Rolls" [in Re Venour's Settled Estates (L. R. 2 Ch. D. at p. 255)]" for saying that the courts look at the marginal notes ?" asked JAMES, L.J., in the same case. "I never knew an amendment set down or discussed upon the marginal note to a clause," added BAGGALLAY, L.J. "The House of Commons never has anything to do with the amendment of a marginal note. I never knew a marginal note considered by the House of Commons." If, therefore, any greater authority than that of WILLES, J., in Claydon v. Green L. R. 3 C. P. 522), were wanted to countervail the dictum of the Master of the Rolls in Re Venour's Settled Estates, here we have it in abundance from three judges of the Court of Appeal. And it is highly satisfactory that it should be so in connection with the statutes of the recent session, for the marginal notes to those statutes are more than ordinarily defective, misleading, and bad. We referred last week to an instance of the kind in the Conveyancing Act. Faults still worse may be found in the Bills of Sale Act. Thus, the marginal note to section 7 lays down one kind of law, while the section itself lays down another, The note to section 6 is: "Exception as to certain things." The note to section 8 leaves out one of the three necessaries to a bill of sale. The marginal note to the important section 2 of the County Court Act, which repeals the limit as to costs and fees, is merely "9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 91, repealed, and enactment in lieu thereof." In the notes to the Electric Lighting Act the words "Board of Trade" scarcely ever occur, and the note to section 6, “Regulations to be inserted in licenses," is misleading. The note to the 10th section of the Inferior Courts Judgments Extension Act, "Act not to apply in certain cases," is a sample of scores of notes in which a little trouble might have sufficed to inform the reader of what kind the "certain cases" are. The notes to sections 8 and 9 of the Married Women's Property Act are respectively these:-To section 8, " Investments in joint names of married women and others." To section 9, "As to stock, &c., standing in the joint names of a married woman and others "thus making sections 8 and 9 to mean the same thing. As a note to section 16 of the same Act, we have the curious words, "Act of wife liable to criminal proceedings." These are merely samples, and it is hardly too much to say that we have scarcely been able to discover a single satisfactory marginal note in this statute. THE OBSERVATIONS of Lord Justice BRETT in Bradley, Respondent; Baylis, Appellant (30 W. R. 823; L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 195) have already caused great perplexity to revising barristers. The Lord Justice in that case, according to the Law Reports, said, "Supposing a man remains in the house and lets off several rooms to different persons who are then his lodgers, and he afterwards lets off all the rest of the rooms, and leaves the house and preserves no actual control over it, so that he is not to go into it, either by his servants or by himself, then those persons who were before lodgers have become by that fact householders. But suppose during the qualifying year one of those lodgers leaves, and the owner thereupon (as assuredly he must) resumes the control over that unlet part, according to my view of the statutes, immediately by that act of his those people left in the house who have been householders become lodgers again. Therefore, to my mind it will be necessary, notwithstanding what we are deciding in the present case, for revising barristers to see that during the whole qualifying year in these cases the whole house has been occupied by persons under conditions which make them householders, and if during the year the whole house has not been so occupied, and the owner has had a control over it, then none of those persons have been householders for the qualifying year." The words we have italicised seem to leave no doubt as to the meaning of the Lord Justice; but it is to be observed that they do not occur in the report in the WEEKLY REPORTER, which, we believe, represents what was actually said by the Lord Justice in delivering his judgment, and the four words certainly constitute rather a slender ground for the contention that the mere vacating of a room by a tenant in a house wholly let out involves the resumption of control by the landlord, so as to turn the householders into lodgers, especially considering the observations as to the definition of a lodger in the judgment of Lord Justice CorTON in the same case. The Revising Barrister at Plymouth seems, however, to have adopted Lord Justice BRETT's view, but the Revising Barrister at Westminster, after apparently adopting it, afterwards reversed his own decision, but granted a case. The subject is too important and complicated to be discussed in a few lines, and we propose to return to it hereafter, but, whether Lord Justice BRETT's view is right or wrong, the course ultimately adopted by the Westminster Barrister is clearly that which should be recommended to revising barristers. THE NEW CONVEYANCING ACT. II. WE come now to examine those sections of the Act-8 and 9— which seem to us to be open to the most serious objection. Section 8 enacts that if a power of attorney, given for valuable consideration, is expressed to be irrevocable, then in favour of a purchaser,— "(i.) The power shall not be revoked at any time, either by anything done by the donor of the power without the concurrence of the donee of the power, or by the death, marriage, lunacy, unsoundne s of mind, or bankruptcy of the donor of the power; and "(.) Any act done at any time by the donee of the power, in pursuance of the power, shall be as valid as if anything done by the donor of the power without the concurrence of the donee of the power, or the death, marriage, lunacy, unsoundness of mind, or bankruptcy of the donor of the power, had not been done or happened; and 66 (iii.) Neither the donce of the power nor the purchaser shall at any time be prejudicially affected by notice of anything done by the donor of the power, without the concurrence of the donee of the power, or of the death, marriage, lunacy, unsoundness of mind, or bankruptcy of the donor of the power. We need not cite section 9 at length, which exactly resembles section 8 in its provisions, except that the power of attorney does not need to be given for valuable consideration, and that the time during which it may be made irrevocable is restricted to one year. Much modern legislation is distinguished by its feverish solicitude to protect purchasers for valuable consideration; and this remark applies very strongly to the Conveyancing Acts. The desire is, in itself, laudable, and it has always been carried to a reasonable length to the general satisfaction. But it is one of those things which admit of being carried too far. There is a substratum of excellent sense in the old motto caveat emptor; and a mind must be strangely constituted which desires to protect purchasers in the commission, with their eyes open, of what is nothing more nor less than a deliberate fraud. The Court of Appeal has already held that section 70 of the former Act has an effect to which we must take the liberty to apply the language above used, in Re Hall Dare's Contract (supra, p. 371): a decision which evidently surprised and probably annoyed some eminent persons who had helped to bring it about. We fear that very undesirable consequences might follow from the sections now under consideration; and they undoubtedly present an opportunity for asking some very awkward questions. Consider the case of the death of the donor of the power: the words relating to which are placed in italics. Since an act done after the death is made good only as in favour of a purchaser, it seems to be the general duty of the attorney to abstain from acting if he receives notice of the death. The Act does not give him a generally valid power, but only a power which is valid for a limited purpose. Circumstances can be imagined which would give rise to very curious cases of conscience. It is well known that an entail cannot be barred by a mere contract. Suppose that a tenant in tail should contract to sell, and having given a power of attorney, expressed to be irrevocable for the space of a year, to execute the conveyance, should die within the year and before the execution: ought the attorney to execute the conveyance, or no? and if, out of friendship to the issue in tail, or from any other motive, he refused to execute it, could he be compelled to execute it? It is quite clear that this case was not foreseen by any of the eminent and learned persons concerned in the passing of the Act; for if they had foreseen it, they could hardly, with any propriety, have omitted to say so; and we do not think it to the public advantage that Acts of Parliament should include cases which were not foreseen by their authors. In this case, whatever reply is given to our questions, we find them all unsatisfactory. If it be replied that the donee ought, under such circumstances, to desist from executing the deed, and even that the execution under such circumstances would be void, we might be disposed to applaud the decision; but we should lament that, in order to arrive at this desirable result, resort must be had to methods of interpretation with which we have lately been made too familiar, and of which we do not approve. If it be replied, that the attorney might himself elect whether to execute the deed, and that his execution would be valid but could not be compelled, we do not think it desirable that the conflicting claims of the purchaser and the issue in tail should depend upon the favour or caprice of the attorney. And lastly, if any ardent and thoroughgoing champion should reply, that the attorney ought to execute the deed and could be compelled to do so if he refused, and that entails ought to be barrable by contract, and, indeed, that they ought to have no existence-why, without expressing any judg ment upon the merit of those propositions, we feel quite clear that they ought not to be established as the unforeseen result of an accident. This is only one out of several cases which might be proposed to much the same purpose. It is a serious fault in both of the Conveyancing Acts, which goes far to obscure their merit (and may, therefore, go some way to excuse us, if we have ever seemed unreasonably to underrate their merit), that they often fail to anticipate the existence of anybody so perverse as to apply them to cases which did not occur to their authors. against section 8; with some peculiar to itself, since it is more Section 9 is, of course, open to all the objections which lie obviously open to abuse. The fixed time not exceeding a year, during which the power is to be irrevocable, is to be computed from the date of the instrument. It is scarcely credible that this was intended; yet there seems to be no possibility that the courts will be able to hold that "one year from the date" means " from the execution"; they might just as well take it upon them to say, that "one year" means two years or six months. It follows that, though the period of irrevocability is limited to a year, this may be any year whatever. If the courts should assume jurisdiction to amend the section in the way suggested, we should esteem the result more unfortunate still. one year The 10th section has, since its original appearance in 1880, gone through as many and great transmutations as Sir John Cutler's silk stockings. We cannot easily understand the frame of mind which could swallow section 65 of the former Act, and feel scruples over this harmless and even beneficial enactment, It provides that an executory limitation in defeasance of a fee simple or term of years, upon default or failure of issue, shall become void as soon as any such issue shall attain twenty-one years. If there ever existed any method by which such a limitation might be barred, there exists none now; and we are somewhat inclined to wonder that some such measure was not passed shortly after the Fines and Recoveries Act. But it would still be quite possible, under certain circumstances very easy of occurrence, to effect the same, or nearly the same, object by other methods having indisputable validity. We have already made some mention in our columns of the amendments introduced by section 11 into section 65 of the former Act relating to the enlargement of long terms. Some perhaps may regret that Lord Cairns did not see his way to a total repeal of that ill-contrived and ill-conceived enactment; or, at all events, that he did not take this opportunity to recast it entirely. Few clauses have ever been passed which allow so much room for improvement, or, indeed, which clamour so loudly for it. But these are days in which we must be thankful for small mercies; and the slight amendments which have been vouchsafed by Lord Cairns are likely to be universally approved. Section 12 enacts that the right to call upon a mortgagee to transfer, instead of re-conveying, given by section 15 of last year's Act, (1) shall be exerciscable by each incumbrancer, or (2) by the mortgagor, notwithstanding any intermediate incumbrance; but that their respective "requisitions" (as it calls them) shall rank in order of priority, the mortgagor coming last. This follows the principle of Teevan v. Smith (supra, p. 464), by which it was decided before the passing of this Act, that a puisne mortgagee, as a person "deriving title under the mortgagor," was entitled to exercise the specified power. Lastly, we observe that the "repeal clause," section 13, introduces some new words, apparently designed to meet the criticisms passed upon the language of section 71 of last year's Act, which seem, on the whole, to be sufficient for the purpose. citor, so that the further charge is not prepared by the same solicitor who investigated the title on the original mortgage. We presume that in this case the provision of the last clause of rule 2 (c) will come into operation, and the remuneration will be regulated according to the present system as altered by Schedule II. Part II. of Schedule I. regulates, first of all, the remuneration for completed leases and agreements for leases "other than a mining lease or a lease for building purposes or agreement for the same." Building leases reserving rent" are dealt with, as we shall see hereafter, in another portion of Part II. It would obviously be difficult or impossible to frame or work a scale which would be just, as between solicitor and client, in the case of mining leases reserving royalties; and the provision by which the remuneration of the solicitor in this case is left according to the present system as altered by Schedule II. is the only reasonable one which could have been adopted. But should not some definition have been given of the terms "mining lease" and "lease for building purposes "? Does a "mining lease" in the Order include a grant or licence for mining purposes, or a lease of a brickfield or quarries ? Do "building purposes" include the improving, adding to, or repairing of buildings? The lessor's solicitor's commission for "preparing, settling, and completing lease and counterpart" of a lease to which this scale applies is" £7 10s. per cent. on the rental," where the rent does not exceed £100, with a minimum charge of £5; and where the rent exceeds £100 and does not exceed £500, "£7 10s. in respect of the first £100 of rent, and £2 10s. in respect of each subsequent £100 of rent"; and where the rent exceeds £500, £7 10s. in respect of the first £100 of rent, £2 10s. in respect of each £100 of rent up to £500, and £1 in respect of every subsequent £100." It will be observed that the words 'per cent." are omitted after the £2 10s. prescribed for each subsequent £100, and also after the £1 prescribed for each £100 after £500; and this led a correspondent, whose letter was printed in our last week's issue, to inquire whether it was intended that no more than the £7 10s. should be given unless the rent actually reached £200; in other words, whether remuneration was to be given in respect of fractions of £100 beyond the first £100. Rule 6 in Part II. of Schedule I., which provides that "fractions of £5 are to be CONTINUING the subject of the remuneration for transactions in reckoned as £5," certainly contemplates remuneration in respect which the same solicitor acts for different parties, the next case of fractions, and although it may possibly be suggested that it which occurs is that where the same solicitor acts for a purchaser has reference only to rent below £100-in which case the scale and mortgagor, and another solicitor acts for the mortgagee. In provides a remuneration of "£7 10s. per cent. on the rental "— this case rule 6 in Schedule I. does not apply, for the conveyance we think that the rule is intended to have a general application, and mortgage are not prepared by the same solicitor. And it and that the words " per cent." have been accidentally omitted would appear that the solicitor acting for purchaser and mort-after the "£2 10s." and " £1." This is a matter of considerable gagor will be entitled to full commission in both capacities-that importance, upon which the profession ought to have some is to say, on a mortgage for £5,000 he will be entitled to two com- authoritative statement of the meaning of the Order. missions of £45 each. THE REMUNERATION ORDER. IV. The remuneration of the lessee's solicitor for perusing draft lease and completing is to be one-half of the amount payable to the lessor's solicitor. In considering the question of the sufficiency of this remuneration it should be remembered that, under rule 4, the remuneration is to include copying and parchment. The cost of these will be no inconsiderable item in the case of lease and counterpart. Moreover, as nothing is said in the Order on the subject, we presume that the costs of all copies of plans or engrossing plans on the instruments are to be included in the remuneration. We believe we are not far wrong in saying that £100 may be taken as about the average rental of the leases which a London solicitor has to prepare. How much of the £7 10s., which the lessor's solicitor is to be allowed, will be swallowed up in the expenses we have mentioned, most of our readers will be able to estimate for themselves. We now come to the remuneration for transfers of mortgages and further charges, which is governed by rule 10 in Schedule I. This rule provides that "the above scale as to mortgages is to apply to transfers of mortgages where the title is investigated, but not to transfers where the title was investigated by the same solicitor on the original mortgage or on any previous transfer; and it is not to apply to further charges where the title has been so previously investigated. As to such transfers and further charges the remuneration is to be regulated according to the present system as altered by Schedule II. hereto. But the scale for negotiating the loan shall be chargeable on such transfers and further charges where it is applicable." As regards transfers the effect of the rule in placing transfers where the title is investigated, and has not been previously investigated by the transferee's solicitor, on the same footing as mortgages, seems to need no explanation. But as regards further charges it is to be ob- It will be observed that rule 2 (b) provides that, "in respect of served that there is only a negative provision that the leases and agreements for leases . completed, the remunerascale is not to apply to them "where the title has tion of the solicitor having the conduct of the business, is to be been so previously investigated"-that is to say, where that prescribed in Part II. of Schedule I." Now, Part II. of it has been " investigated by the same solicitor on the original Schedule I. is headed, Scale of charges as to leases or agreemortgage or on any previous transfer," and it is provided ments for leases," but it only provides for the case of "lessor's that, as to such further charges," the remuneration is solicitor for preparing, settling, and completing lease and counterto be regulated according to the present system, &c. No express part." It is perhaps not very usual nowadays for a solicitor to provision is made for the case of the mortgagee changing his soli-prepare both an agreement for a lease and a subsequent lease of 66 the same property, except in building leases; but suppose he does prepare an agreement for a lease and a subsequent lease at a rent cf £100, is he to be entitled to £7 10s. for the agreement and £7 10s. for the lease? It can hardly be that the single commission of £7 10s. is to cover both the agreement and the lease, for by the express words of the scale the £7 10s. is to be payable for preparing, settling, and completing lease and counterpart." Here again is a matter on which an authoritative statement as to the meaning of the Order would be very desirable. CORRESPONDENCE. THE REMUNERATION ORDER.-RULE 11 IN SCHEDULE I. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, I have been abroad during the last few weeks, and have only just seen the new Remuneration Order and your criticisms upon it. Rule 11, that "the scale for conducting a sale by auction shall apply only in cases where no commission is paid by the client to an auctioneer," is, as you remark, somewhat mysterious. There are, however, I venture to suggest, two constructions that may be put on it. One course would be to italicise the word "commission," leaving the solicitor entitled to fee instead of commission, and another to italicise the words "by the the remuneration provided by the scale where the auctioneer received a client," and treat the rule as intending the solicitor to pay the auctioneer out of his own remuneration. In the course of a somewhat extensive practice during the last twenty selling. I invariably make a bargain that a fee of so many guineas shall be accepted for his services, and, in many cases where the auctioneer's opinion as to value is not desired, a fee of three or five guineas is accepted to £5,000. as sufficient payment for offering properties worth, perhaps, from £1,000 The latter part of the scale we are now considering has reference to "charges as to conveyances in fee, or for any other freehold estate reserving rent, or building leases reserving rent, or other long leases not at rack-rent (except mining leases), or agreements for the same respectively." In the case of building leases, the ground-rent reserved is often so small that it would be absurd to make the remuneration of the solicitor the same as on leases at rack-rent, and it is provided that in the case of the above-years, I have very seldom paid a country auctioneer a commission for mentioned conveyances and leases the remuneration of the vendor's or lessor's solicitor for preparing, settling, and completing conveyance and duplicate, or lease and counterpart, where the rent does not exceed £5, shall be £5; where the rent exceeds £5 and does not exceed £50, the same payment as on a rent of £5, and also twenty per cent. on the excess beyond £5; where the rent exceeds £50, but does not exceed £150, the same payment as on a rent of £50 and ten per cent. on the excess beyond £50; and where the rent exceeds £150, the same payment as on a rent of £150, and five per cent. on the excess beyond £150. And the remuneration of the purchaser's or lessee's solicitor for perusing draft and completing is to be one-half of the amount payable to the vendor's or lessor's solicitor. On a building lease, therefore, at a rent of £50, the lessor's solicitor's commission for preparing, settling, and completing lease and counterpart will be £14, and the lessee's solicitor's commission for perusing draft and completing will be £7. It is provided that "where a varying rent is payable, the amount of annual rent is to mean the largest amount of annual rent." If a lease is granted partly in consideration of a premium and partly of a rent, vendor's and purchaser's solicitor's commission on such premium will have to be added to the remuneration in respect of the rent (rule 5 in Part II. of Schedule I.). Under rule 2 in Part II. of Schedule I., a solicitor concerned for both vendor and purchaser (in conveyances at a rent), or for both lessor and lessee, is to charge the vendor's or lessor's solicitor's charges, and one-half of the purchaser's or lessee's solicitor's charges. On a lease at a rack-rent of £100, therefore, the solicitor acting for both lessor and lessee will be entitled to £9 7s. 6d. On a building lease, reserving a rent of £50, the solicitor acting for both lessor and lessee will be entitled to £17 10s. The additional charges which may be made are (1) vendor's or lessor's solicitor's charges for abstract, if furnished, according to the present system as altered by Schedule II.; (2) £1 18. extra to vendor's or lessor's solicitor in case a mortgagee or mortgagor joins in the conveyance or lease [where a party other than a vendor or lessor joins in a conveyance or lease, and is represente d by a separate solicitor, the charges of such separate solicitor are "to be dealt with under the old system as altered by Schedule 11."]. Mr. Justice Day has written a letter announcing his intention to prohibit the reporting of private judicial proceedings heard before him in chambers. Mesere. Jackson & Jackson, the Texas reporters, says the Albany Law Journal, are now and then waggish. Thus, in Durley v. State, p. 172, they say: "The conviction was for aggravated assault upon a woman who weighed 250 pounds, and the penalty was only twenty-five dollars-just ten per cent." The annual report of the Commissioners of Patents for the year 1881 has just been issued. It states that the number of applications for letters patent for the year was 5,751, being 234 more than for the preceding year. The number of letters patent sealed was 3,948, of which 68 lapsed in consequence of the patentees having neglected to file final specifications in pursuance thereof, leaving 3,880 in force. Of this latter number final specifications were filed in respect of 3,621, complete specifications being filed in respect of 259. Applicants failed to seal their patents in 1,798 cases, opposition was offered in four cases, and one application stands over through the decease of the applicant. A table is given showing that about 65 per cent. of the applications for patents from 1852 to 1881 became valid patents. Many country solicitors are also, in effect, land agents, not only managing considerable estates, but trusting to their own acquaintance with the value of land instead of obtaining valuations by auctioneers or professed land valuers. Is it the intention of the framers of the rule to encourage this practice? I throw out these suggestions tentatively in the hope of eliciting some kind of explanation of this rule. H. Hereford, September 20. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] It is a pity that some Sir, The correspondent referred to in the first of your "Current Topics to-day has not given the true explanation of Rule 11 in Schedule I. of the Remuneration Order. stood arises from the part taken by one of the Council of the Law Manchester or Liverpool solicitor has not explained what it is underSociety who hails from Liverpool in settling the Order. The explanation is this:-In Manchester and Liverpool and in other places in the North, and perhaps elsewhere, an auctioneer is not always paid by a commission on the sum realized, as is the case in London. The country auctioneer is merely paid a fee for offering the property, which he seldom values and in most cases is not competent to value. The vendor is advised either by fixes it for himself, and it is understood that the object of the rule is to his solicitor or by a surveyor (who is not an auctioneer) as to value, or he enable the solicitor, in a case where no commission is paid to anyone else, to get one for himself for "conducting" the sale. This opens up a subject which clients will have something to say about, and it must be admitted that in many respects the Remuneration Order will not be satisfactory to clients. A LONDON SOLICITOR. September 16. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, I believe that in the North of England a solicitor conducting a into the box on the day of sale, for which the auctioneer usually receives sale of property only employs an auctioneer for the purpose of getting a fee of about three guineas. The deposit is always paid to the vendor's solicitor. It surprises me that London solicitors should continue to pay enormous commissions to auctioneers for little or no work. I believe a notaire in France always does everything from beginning to end without an auctioneer. My advice to London solicitors is to do everything-advertising, receiving deposit, &c.—and to pay an auctioneer a fee of three guineas to get into the box when necessary. SOLICITOR. London, E C., September 21. THE REMUNERATION ORDER AND THE LAW SOCIETY, [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] arrived. Sir, The new Orders and Rules under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act were published in your journal on the 19th ult. Members of the Law Society, like myself, have been daily expecting to receive from that establishment prints of such orders and rules, which have not, however, that the answer given was that the council did not meet until the On enquiry being made at the society's office, I am informed 29th inst., when the question whether the members should be supplied with copies or not would be discussed. The result of this will probably be that the Michaelmas Sittings will have commenced, and solicitors will be engrossed with other matters, before they are officially informed of the great changes about to be made in their professional charges. Comment appears to be needless. Q. |