« PreviousContinue »
THISELTON, EDWARD JOHN INWOOD, Hereford, Umbrella Maker. Hereford.
Pet Dec 2. Ord Dec 2
Ord Dec 4
Ord Dec 4
Oct 30. Ord Dec 4
Ord Dec 2
Cheshire, Coal Masters. Hanley, Burslem, and Tunstall. Pet Nov 9. Ord
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
Browne. barrister-at-law, of a son.
H. R. E. Disney, solicitor, of a daughter.
Leeds, aged 48.
All letters intended for publication in the “ Solicitors' Journal" must te
authenticated by the name of the writer.
SALES OF ENSUING WEEK,
Plots (see advertisement, Nov. 27, p. 4).
at 2 p.m., Life Interest (see advertisement, Nov. 20, p. 4).
Estate (see advertisement, Nov. 13, p. 4).
Rents (see advertisement, this week, p. 4).
103 LAW SOCIETIES
......... 112 REGISTRY WITH GUARANTEED TITLE 104 LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL .......... 113 CONCERNING SEARCHES
105 LEGAL NEWS
........... 114 THE DOCTRINE OF NOTICE AS COURT PAPERS..
............. 114 AFFECTED BY THE CONVEYANCING WINDING-UP NOTICES .............. 114
ACT, 1882 .......................... 107 CREDITORS' NOTICES................ 114 REVIEWS ................. 107 BANKRUPTCY NOTICES
115 CORRESPONDENCE ......
Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality
BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT,
To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of
the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates keeps for years in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED
ROBES FOR QUEEN'S COUNSEL AND BARRISTERS. with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.
SOLICITORS' GOWNS. Made instantaneously with riling water, & teaspoonful
Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town Clerks, to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny.
and Clerks of the Peace.
94, CHANCERY LANE LONDON. Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietor,
(HOWARD'S PATENT.) 1000 Leaf Book, 5s. 60.; 500 Leaf Book,
3s. 6d. English made. THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OUT.
WODDERSPOON & CO., 7, SERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET,
LINCOLN'S INN, W.O.
THE NEW ZEALAND LAND MORT
I. Schwarranz & Co., 10, Adam-st., Strand, London. w.c CAVENDISH COLLEGE,
- The Corporation of York invite applications HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, K.G.
Capital £2,000,000, fully subscribed.
£200,000 paid up. Reserve Fund, £5,000.
late Premier of New Zealand.
A. M. MITCHISON, Managing Director. Leadenhall-buildings, Leadenhall-st., London, E.C
for the office of Town Clerk of that city. The gentleman selected must be a duly qualified solicitor, and will be required to devote the whole of his time to
The Object of this College is to enable Students at the duties of his office and not to engage in private
the earliest practicable age, and at a moderate cost, practice. In addition to the ordinary duties of a
to take the University Degree in Arts, Law, or Town Clerk he will also have to act as Clerk to the
Medicine. Urban Sanitary Authority, the Quse Navigation
Students are admitted at 16, and a Degree may be Committee, and the School Attendance Committee.
taken at 19. Salary £500 per annum. The corporation will provide
The College Charges for Lodging and Board (with offices and the requisite staff of clerks for the de
an Extra Term in the Long Vacation), including all partment. - Applications in writing, stating age,
necessary expenses of tuition for the B.A. Degree, qualifications, and references, with testmonials (not
are £84 per annum. exceeding six) to be sent in not later than 12 o'clock
For further information apply to the WARDEN, at poon on Monday, the 20th December instant,
Cavendish College, Cambridge.
SCHORNE SCHULEG E non ear Winslow.com
A Church School for One Hundred Sons of
Clergymen, Army and Navy Men, Lawyers, and the If you want Monoy without Fees-amounts like Masters mostly University Men. Thirty £10 to £1,000-before applying elsewhere see Mr.
guineas per annum; entrance fee, five guineas.-AdO. CLIBURN, personally if possible, 43, Great Tower
dress, Rev. Dr. JAMES. street.
LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY,
£5,248,223 excellent opportunities; premium and good references Income for the Year 1885
£138,476 required. -- Address, Messrs. PUTTICK & SIMPSON, 47, Amount paid in claims to 31st Dec., 1885 £14,536,593 Leicester-square, W.C.
Reversionary Bonus allotted for the five
£690,946 Mrs. AGNES KER, late of 6, Astwood-road, South Reversionary Bonuses hitherto allotted
The Expenses of Management, including Commis-
The limits of free travel and residence have been
rates of extra premium can give any information respecting the Will of the largely extended, and above-named deceased, is requested to communicate
reduced. at once with Messrs. ARKCOLL & COCKELL, Solicitors,
Loans granted on security of Policies, Life 41 and 42, Tooley-street, Southwark.
Interests, Reversions, and Borough and County
Life Interests and Reversions are purchased.
Claims paid immediately on proof of death and
Prospectus and Form of Proposal sent on applica
tion to the Actuary. It is
AW UNION FIRE and LIFE INSU
ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR 1854. The only Law Insurance Office in the United Kingdom which transacts both Fire and Life Insurance Business.
Chier Office 216, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. The Funds in hand and Capital Subscribed amount to
& Pembertons), Solicitor, 44, Lincoln's-inn-fields. The Directors invite attention to the New Form of Life Policy, which is free from all conditions.
Policies of Insurance granted against the contingency of Issue at moderate rates of Premium.
The Company ADVANCES Money on Mortgage of Life Interests and Reversions, whether absolute or contingent.
The Company also purchases Reversions.
Prospectuses, copies of the Directors' Report ani! Annual Balance Sheet, and every information, sent post-free on application to
FRANK MCGEDY, Actuary and Secretary.
LAWYERS". PRAYER UNION.
NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY.
Meeting in London for Barristers and Solicitors, and
Established by Royal Charter, A.D. 1720. their Clerks only, on Thursday Evening, December
No. 7, ROYAL EXCHANGE, and 16th, 1886. Mr. J. H. Gresham in the chair. Any
43A, PALL MALL. gentlemen in the legal profession, or their clerks, who Marine, Fire, and Life Assurances have been desire to attend or will assist in inviting others, are granted by the Corporation for more than a century requested to apply to Mr. H. O. NISBET, 35, Lincoln's- and a half. inn-fields,
Funds in hand exceed 1,3,400,000.
CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.
THE HOUSE OF LORDS last week affirmed the judgment of the Court
of Appeal and of a divisional court in the important case of Wakelin In the Solicitors' Journal. Reg. v. Gunnell
v. London and South-Western Railway Co., in which the jury had Blaine's Trust, Re
Reg. v. Juby
128 found for the plaintiff in an action for negligence, but the court Brewster v. Prior
........... 128 had set the verdict aside. The facts were, shortly, that the plain.
Shepheard v. Smith
Swindell and Another v. Bulkeley tiff's husband had been killed by a train on a level crossing late in
124 the evening, the crossing, which was specially dangerous, having
In the Weekly Reporter.
been left unguarded ; and the grounds for the interference of the son, & Co. (Garnishees)
127 Anglo-American Brush Electric court appear to have been that there was no evidence of negliHaberdashers' Co., Ex parte ...... 126 Light Corporation v. Crompton 125 Harrison, Re, Parry v. Spencer.... 126 Bannatyne v. Direct Spanish Tele
gence on the part of the defendants conducing to the accident. Hettihewage Siman Appu
125 | We propose to consider the case in detail at some future time, but
136 Hollingwood Estate Co. (Lim.), Re 125 Hill & Co. v. Hill
must at once point out that the rule laid down by Lord ESHER, M. R., “Indus," The
Hyde v Beardsley
140 in Davey v. London and South-Western Railway Co. (12 Q. B. D.
70), that in an action for negligence the plaintiff must prove, not Norman and another v. Ricketts.. 124 Hallett v. Hastings
133 North Central Wagon Co. v. The
only the negligence of the defendant in the aflrmative, but the Mills, In re, Mills v. Mills...
138 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin Munton v. Lord Truro
138 absence of contributory negligence on his own part in the negacolnshire Railway Co...,
Reeves v. Fowle
138 tive, which was adhered to by that learned judge in Wakelin's (Lim.), Re......
125 Pilson Joel and General Electric
Welch v. National Cycle Works case, and not dissented from by the other two judges of the Court
of Appeal, does not appear from the report before us to have been
and it will be matter of regret if it should prove that the House The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. of Lordo has neither afirmed it nor disafirmed it, for judges at LONDON, DECEMBER 18, 1886.
gence, in which, of course, contributory negligence is the defence most frequently set up. A full report of the judgments may perhaps contain some passages affording & guide in the
matter. CURRENT TOPICS. UP TO THURSDAY alternoon there was no authority for the statement which appeared in the morning papers of that day as to the arrangements for the Christmas Vacation, but we believe that one MR. JUSTICE CHITty, in deciding the case of Re Lambert, oti of the Vacation Judges will sit in the Queen's Bench judges' Tuesday last, may, at first sight, appear to have carried somewhat chambers on two days in each week after the offices are opened on far the law as to the admissibility of declarations by deceased witthe 28th inst., and that the arrangements for pressing business nesses as to questions of pedigree. The question in the case was in the Chancery Division will be practically as usual.
as to the existence of a marriage between two persons, both of whom were dead, and evidence was admitted of a draft will, in which the alleged husband had described his alleged wife by her
maiden name, and as passing as his wife, there being no signature IT HAS FOR SOME TIME been understood that Lord BLACKBURN or attestation. It was contended that this was not a statement by was desirous of resigning his position as Lord of Appeal, and the the husband, but only an intended statement. The learned announcement of his resignation which has appeared this week, judge's ruling that the draft was admissible appears, however, if not authorised, is probably only in advance of the fact. Ac- to be entirely within well-known decisions of the House of cording to a rumour which has been prevalent in well-informed Lords. In The Sussex Peerage case (11 Cl. & F. 85) the question circles, his successor is to be Lord Justice Corton-an appointment was as to the admissibility of an entry made in a Prayer-book. which would be equally matter of congratulation to suitors in the Lady Augusta had made an unsigned entry in the book to the House of Lords and matter of regret to suitors in the Court of effect that it was the Prayer-book by which she was married to the Appeal.
Duke of Surses at Rome on a certain day, the entry itself not being dated; and the House of Lords admitted the entry, not as
proving the marriage, but as a declaration by one of the parties A RUMOUR is current, which is believed to be not altogether that there had been a marriage. In The Berkeley Peerage case without foundation, that a proposal has been set on foot for en (4 Camp. 401), a question was raised as to the admissibility of larging the hours for keeping open some of the offices in the Royal an entry in a Bible by the deceased father of the person whose Courts of Justice. The proposal is said to apply to the offices of illegitimacy was in issue, to the effect that the latter was his the chief clerks of the chancery judges, and to be that those offices eldest son, and born in lawful wedlock on a particular date. should be open from 10 to 5, instead of from 10 to 4. It is difti. Although it was proved that the father had declared that cult to believe that solicitors in general desire such a change. he had made the entry for the express purpose of establishing his Appointments at chambers which last up to 4 o'clock leave but a limited time before the post closes for the necessary work of corres after consulting the judges, held that the entry was evidence of pondence, and if solicitors, or their clerks, were called upon to the son's legitimacy. Chief Justice MANSFIELD, in delivering the attend at chambers so late as 5 o'clock the greatest inconvenience unanimous opinion of the judges, held that the motive with during which the offices are to be open to the public, and not to suspicion " ; but Lord ELLENBOROUGH expressed a doubt whether diening It will be observed that the proposal relates to the Lime atlhough its particularity would be a strong circumstance of big at 4 o'clock, as at present, the oficials are able to deve ter os dispute appears to have subsisted, is admissible." In the recent much time as is required to finishing up the day's work, and it is case Mr.Justice Cairty pointed out that the objections to the form notorious that they not only remain for a considerable time after of the declaration put in evidence referred to its weight, not to its 4 o'clock, but that many of them take home work to do in the admissibility; and he acted on the general principle that, upon a ITS SELBORNE's Committee, which was printed early in this year. family is admissible for what it is worth. eneratings. This may be gathered from the evidence given before question of pedigree, any declaration by any member of the If the officials have to keep their offices open to the public until 5 o'clock, the completion of the clearing up of the work of the day must be postponed. But, putting this question of the officers on one side, it may, we think, be asserted that there is no general demand for the change stated to be in contemplation.
THE QUESTION whether Campbell vi Campbell (No. 2) and sim ilar cases ought or ought not to be heard' in camera has been
so much discussed of late that it is well to draw attention to a affirmative evidence of any particular defendant having been once a curious distinction in Divorce Court practice. It is settled beyond Christian, has never to our knowledge been raised, but we imagine doubt by C. v. C. (1 P. & D. 640) that the court has no that the ordinary rule by which the burden of proof is thrown power to hear a suit for dissolution of marriage in camerâ ; but upon a prosecutor would apply, although we think also that very
The the judgment in that case recognizes as lawful the frequent slight evidence would have to be adduced in ordinary cases. practice of so hearing suits for nullity of marriage, and the punishment for common law blasphemy is fine or imprisonment or reporter's head-note, though not the judgment, recognizes as both at the discretion of the judge ; whereas it will be observed equally lawful the not so frequent practice of so hearing suits for that the punishment for apostacy is different, and no discretion judicial separation, of which Campbell v. Campbell (No. 1) furnished whatever is left to the court. an instance. This distinction is based on section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), by which“ in all suits and proceedings, other than proceedings to dissolve any marriage, the said court (of Divorce) shall proceed and act and give relief on QUESTIONS WHICH ARISE with regard to the payment by executors principles and rules which, in the opinion of the said court, shall of death duties become increasingly important as time runs on be as nearly as may be conformable to the principles on which the from the death of a testator, as interest on any unpaid duty can ecclesiastical courts have heretofore acted and given relief,” and it be required to be paid. Attention can hardly be too forcibly drawn was a common practice of such courts to hear in camerá suits for to section 6 of 36 Geo. 3, c. 52, the substance of which may be nullity on physical grounds and for divorce a mensâ et thoro stated as follows:-“If an executor retains legacies without pay(corresponding to judicial separation). Not only does the section ing the duty, or, on payment of legacies, deducts, without paying, expressly exclude suits for dissolution, but, as it appears from the duty, it shall be a debt from him. If he pays legacies without
Ç. (ubi supra), in one of the amendment Bills a clause deducting duty it shall be a debt from the executor and from the which had been introduced giving the general power to hear legatee.” In a recent case which has come to our knowledge a in camera was rejected by the Legislature, and, as was held residuary account was passed nearly sixty years ago, in which in H. v. C. (29 L.J. P. & M. 81) without express power in that account the executors retained a large sum (since distributed) on behalf, the public cannot be excluded, even by consent of parties, which duty was stated to be not then payable. The last undivided and in the latter case the court, not having its attention called portion of the estate being in court and about to be divided, it was to section 22 of the Act of 1857 (which, it must be admitted, has discovered that no duty had been paid on the sum retained sixty been rather liberally construed in favour of exclusion), went so years ago, and the persons entitled to the fuad in court successfar as to refuse to hear a suit for nullity in camera. We may fully contended that, as the fund in court was not part of the sum observe that the customary exclusion of women and boys from retained when duty was paid on" the residuary estate,” the duty trials for rape and the like cannot be legally enforced (being a and interest on the sum retained was a debt due from the execumere notification rather than a compulsory exclusion), and that a tors personally, and could not be required to be paid out of the clause giving the judge power to exclude the public, or some fund in court. portion of it, from such trials was rejected when the Criminal Law Amendment Act was before Parliament in 1885. As to the general principle, we think that there is only a choice of evils, and that the actual exclusion of the public from a trial is a THE RIGHT OF SUPPORT TO BUILDINGS FROM greater evil than the possible contamination of some by becoming acquainted with offensive details.
the much-vexed question of the right to support for buildings from IN THE RECENT CASE of Pankhurst v. Sowler the court, and adjacent land or buildings, and we propose to make a few observaespecially Mr. Baron HUDDLESTON, took occasion to throw doubt tio on this topic which have been suggested to us by what he has upon the correctness of the law of blasphemy as laid down by Lord written. The pamphlet is, in substance, an elaborate and interCOLERIDGE in his celebrated and exhaustive exposition in Reg. esting criticism of the decision of Hall, V.C., in Lemaitre v. Davis
Ramsay and Foote (15 Cox C. C. 231). We have referred to (30 W. R. 360, 19 Ch. D. 281), which the author conceives to be the report of that exposition, and think that passages in it may be wrong, and to have been founded on an erroneous view of the open to exception, though, as a whole, it fairly represents the law. effect of the celebrated case of Angus v. Dallon (27 W. R. 623, But one very material point should not be losť sight of, and that is 30 W. R. 191, 3 Q. B. D. 85, 4 Q. B. D. 162, 6 App. Cas. 740). the distinction between the law of blasphemy, which rests mainly The Vice-Chancellor, appears to have held that the decision in on the common law, and the law of apostacy, which is purely Angus v. Dalton applied to a case of support to a building from the creature of the statute 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 32. By this statute another building. The authorities on the question are reviewed in “ if any person having been educated in, or at any time having made the pamphlet at considerable length, and the conclusion is arrived profession of, the Christian religion, shall by writing, printing, at by the author that the right to support for buildings by buildteaching, or advised speaking deny. the Christian religion ings stands on a different footing entirely from the right to support to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for buildings by adjacent land. To discuss at length the arguto be of Divine authority," and shall be convicted on indictment, ments used by the author, and his views of the effect of the such person is for the first offence disabled from having or enjoying different authorities respectively, would require a far larger any office, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, and for the second amount of space than we can command. We should, moreover, be offence is subjected to further disabilities and also to “imprison- sorry to pronounce any judgment on the question which he raises ment for the space of three years without bail or main- without the most careful consideration and research. We think, prize." There are passages in Reg. v. Ramsay and Foote however, that his pamphlet makes out a very fair case for the which bear the interpretation that the statute is obsolete conclusion that that question cannot be considered as finally settled and could not be acted on, and such passages are, we think, by the decision in Lemaitre v. Davis, which we must admit does beyond doubt, incorrect (see R. v. Carlile, 3 B. & Ald. 161; R. v. seem to assume, in a somewhat offhand way, that the decision in Waddington, 1 B. & C. 26). But Messrs. RAMSAY and' FOOTE Angus v. Dalton applies to the case of support to buildings by were indicted, not as apostates—for the indictment appears to have buildings. What we propose briefly to do is to give the heads of contained no averment that they had been once Christians—but as his argument as far as possible in his own words, and then to blasphemers, contumelious blasphemers ; and their offence, if indicate the points where the chain of argument appears to us to offence it was, could have been committed by a Jew or Mahometan, be weakest, without pretending to enunciate any very definite whereas the statutory offence under 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 32, can conclusion for ourselves. The question is altogether too big to be only be committed by one who has been once a Christian. The knocked off within the limits of a short article. question on whom the burden of proof is thrown, whether the prosecutor is entitled to assume that every person has been once a Christian until the contrary is proved or whether he must give G. Gray, Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Sons.
* The Right to Lateral Support from Land and Buildings. By George
The author, at the close of a long discussion of the cases, for the natural right properly 80-called. The right to a certain amount mulates the following conclusions :-1. The lateral support to land of support from adjacent land-i.e., that which would be suffifrom the adjacent soil is an inherent right of property. 2. The cient to support the surface unbuilt upon—is a strictly natural right of ownership includes a right to build to the extremity of right. We cannot understand how a right that requires to be one's land, and the law, after the enjoyment of lateral support for acquired, whether by enjoyment or otherwise, can be said to such building from the adjacent soil during a probationary period be a natural right or a right of property in the proper sense of twenty years, protects such enjoyment as a right of property of the term. 3. The right of support to a building from an adjoining building We pointed out, in commenting on Angus v. Dalton at the time, is a negative easement. 4. The enjoyment of such easement is that to some extent the cases as to support for buildings appeared incapable of being reasonably interrupted, and therefore is not to involve the idea of the protection of ancient enjoyment, apart within the Prescription Act, which, except in the case of light, from any notion of a right created by acquiescence in a wrong. is confined to positive easements. 5. The circumstances (apart We would, in passing, point out that the applicability or non-applicafrom contract) under which a building usually requires support are bility of the Prescription Act, though, of course, material, is not not such as to call for, or justify, a protection of such encroach- conclusive of the question in general, for, after all, the Prescripment or burden by the law. The result is, as we understand, the tion Act did not alter the basis upon which easements rest. conclusion that the right to support for buildings from adjacent It only substituted shorter periods for time whereof the memory of buildings cannot be acquired by mere enjoyment. The most man runneth not to the contrary. The prescriptive right of support important step in the reasoning is that contained in proposition 2 for buildings by adjacent land, which must now be taken to have The author seeks to shew that the right to support for buildings been established somehow, must, in our opinion, really rest on the by land is a right of property, like the natural right of support basis of mere length of enjoyment. We are not at present confor land by adjacent land.
vinced that the same considerations do not apply to support of It will be readily perceived that it is very essential to the buildings by buildings, or that, as a matter of justice and expediargument that a fundamental distinction should be established ency, long enjoyment de facto ought not in that case also to be between the character of the right of support for building by protected. It is easy to say that an easement ought not to be building, and that of support for building by adjacent land. The obtained where there is no power to resist its acquisition ; but, if author, therefore, endeavours to shew that the latter is a sort of the matter be carefully considered, we do not so clearly see why enhanced natural right, for on perusal of the context it is obvious the fact of the possibility of resistance makes so much difference. that the distinction is between natural rights and easements. It It is difficult to see how it adds one grain's weight of merit or is vital to make out that one of the rights is a natural or quasi- justice to the case of the owner of the dominant tenement. The natural right of property, and the other an easement, for if they fact that a person has enjoyed an advantage wrongfully for twenty are both to be considered easements it is somewhat difficult to years does not seem to us to tell more in favour of his right to distinguish the one case from the other. The great argument protection than if he had enjoyed it for that period lawfully. The against the existence of the easement of support from mere enjoy- only way in which it works is as reducing the hardship involved ment the absence of any power of resistance to the acquisition of to the owners of the servient tenement, because, if a man acquithe right by the owners of the servient tenement. If this con- esces, it may be presumed he does not object to his neighbours sideration is not fatal to the existence, through long enjoyment, of having the right. The philosophical basis of easements seems to the easement of support for buildings by adjacent land, it is us in truth to be mainly the fact of undisturbed enjoyment by difficult to see how it can be fatal to the existence, through long the owner of the dominant tenement, whether rightful or wrongenjoyment, of the easement of support for buildings by adjacent ful, rather than the acquiescence of the owner of the servient buildings if such right be an easement. So far as we can perceive, tenement. We do not say that this is always their legal basis, if they are both easements, they stand on much the same footing because in most cases no doubt both elements exist, and the fact It may be urged that, in the one case, the enjoyment of the right of acquiescence has been relied upon as an essential element. But would generally be clam, whereas in the other it is not, because in considering how far a right which cannot depend on acquiescence it is more or less obvious that adjacent land supports a building. should be considered to extend, it is admissible to look to the But it does not seem to us that the question whether the enjoy- underlying justice and expediency of the case. We cannot ment is clam or not can be very material when the easement does undertake to weigh in the balance together the conflicting connot depend on acquiescence or default in resisting its acquisition. siderations which exist in practice for or against the conclusion It is very clear to us, we must say, that the easement of support that the easement of support for buildings by buildings can be for buildings by adjacent land cannot depend on acquiescence. obtained by length of enjoyment. But we cannot help thinking Therefore it does not seem to us that any sound distinction exists that, where two buildings have existed for a very long time side
by side, and the owner of one of them alters the existing state of
II. TAE MODERN LAW OF JUDGMENTS (continued). every such right must come, and we have considerable difficulty in Lands within the jurisdictions of the Palatine Courts of Lin. understanding how any particular period of enjoyment can be caster and Durham.—By 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 19, the Durham palatine necessary for the acquisition of a natural right properly so-called, jurisdiction was severed from the bishoprics of Durham, and vested or how a natural right can, as such, be enhanced by enjoyment. as a separate franchise and royalty in the Crown. Section 7 of the We must confess that we cannot exactly comprehend the classifica- Act defines the extent of the county of Durbam as comprising tion by which the author endeavours to separate the two rights of the county of Durham and Sadberge, including the detached support in question. We doubt whether, in discussing the cases, parts of Craikshire, Bedlingtonshire, Norhamshire, Allertonsbire, the author has quite appreciated another point-viz., that the and Islandshire, and all other places heretofore within the jurisproperly so-called "natural right of support for land by adjacent diction of the bishopric of Durham in right of the said county land may give a right to damages for injury to buildings by the palatine."
Lands within the counties palatine are affected-first, by judg. down even if there had been no building upon it. So, when the ments of the High Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction extends into action is for damages to buildings, the basis of the claim may be the counties palatine (2 Wms. Saund. 194 ; 1 Jarm. Conv. 110 ; 1
lich is s from serta he has inte Dark to in
in this respect.
Cr. M. & R. 597, 848; Dart. V. & P. 486), and, therefore, the like and, if registered in London only, would affect the lands, as to pursearches in the register of judgments in the Central Office are neces- chasers, only from the time when it was also registered in the local sary, as in the case of other lands. But by 18 Vict. c. 15, s. 2, registry (Westbrook v. Blythe, 3 E. & B. 737, 742; Hughes v.
no judgment, decree, order, or rule of any court shall bind lands, Lumley, 4 E. & B. 274)—i.e., as against purchasers without &c., in the counties palatine respectively,” as against purchasers, notice; for notice would supply the want of registration in the unless and until registered with the prothonotaries of the respective local registry, though not (see ante, p. 73) of registration in the palatine courts.
London Registry under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. But the former Secondly, they are affected by judgments and decrees of the Yorkshire Registry Acts allowed registration, if made within palatine courts. The common law courts of Lancaster and Durham thirty days, as to lands in the West and East Ridings, and have (ante, pp. 105, 106) been abolished; and as to decrees and within twenty days as to the North Riding, to operate retroorders of the palatine chancery courts, we have pointed out spectively, so as to bind the lands as from signing of jądgment. above (p. 106) that it appears to be nécessary that they should The result was that a purchaser who contracted during those be registered and re-registered in the Central Office in London in periods was bound, though he had no notice, provided the judg. order to affect purchasers of “any lands,” including lands in the ment was registered in the Court of Common Pleas before the conpalatine counties.
tract, and was subsequently, within the twenty or thirty days, Registration and re-registration with the prothonotaries or registered in the Yorkshire Registry. But, by virtue of 2 & 3 deputy-prothonotaries of palatine courts were also required. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 11, s. 5, the purchaser being without notice, the lands Vict. c. 110, 8. 21, applied the provisions of that Act, as to the would be liable only to the remedies given by the law before 1 & 2 operation of judgments, to the common law courts of Lancaster and Vict. c. 110. Durham, and required them to be registered in the palatine Therefore, it would seem that a purchaser with notice (actual, registries. The provisions of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, 2 & 3 not constructive) would be bound (now as to Middlesex only) by Vict. c. 11, and 3 & 4 Vict. c. 82, as to registration and a judgment registered in London but not in the local registry; notice were declared to extend and apply mutatis mutandis but not bound if the judgment was registered in the local registry to the Chancery Court of Lancaster by 13 & 14 Vict. c. 43, 8. 24, only and not in London (ante, p. 73); a purchaser without notice and to common law palatinate courts and the Chancery Court of would not be bound unless the judgment was registered in both Durham by 18 Vict. c. 15, ss. 2, 3, and 9, so far as regards the registries, and then would be bound only to the extent of the lands within their respective jurisdictions, and provision was made old law. for registration in the palatine registries. The terms of the last The result as to searches appears to be that a search in the mentioned Act (section 3) appear to shew that it is intended to central office alone will disclose all judgments which can affect apply its own provisions to the common law and chancery courts of lands in the registry counties. The Registry Acts do not provide for both Lancaster and Durham. The result of this legislation (Prid. re-registration ; and, therefore, a search in them would have to on Judgm., 4th ed., App. 2, p. 4n) was to place decrees, orders, and extend over the whole period for which it was formerly made rules of the palatine courts on the footing of judgments of the the Common Pleas Register. A purchaser who searched the local common law palatine courts ; to require them to be registered and register alone would not be safe, for though he would not be re-registered in the palatine registries in order to affect purchasers bound by judgments not entered there (prorided he had not notice of lands within the palatine counties, with the like protection in of them) though registered in the London registry, yet it would respect of notice or absence of notice, in the same manner, and to be difficult on a resale to satisfy a purchaser of the absence of the same extent, as in the case of judgments of the High Court of notice (Prid. Conv., vol. 1, p. 159, 11th ed.). Justice. The 2nd section of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38 applied the pro Under the Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 54), visions of that Act (ante, p. 73) in regard to writs of execution ss 4, 5, any
may be registered; by section 3, and the registry thereof mutatis mutandis to judgments of the
includes “order of a court," and "order of a court common law courts of Lancaster and Durham.
any judgment, decree, writ of execution, or sequestration, It thus appears that, to affect purchasers of lands in either of or other order or process of or issuing from a court of competent the palatine counties, judgments of the High Court must be regis- jurisdiction, whereby any interest in any land is or may be tered and re-registered both in the Central Office and in the affected.” respective palatine registries, and judgments of the palatine courts As to judgments coming within 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, and 27 & themselves must certainly be registered and re-registered in the 28 Vict. c. 112 respectively, those Acts must be applied and read palatine registries, and probably also in the Central Office. The together with the Registry Acts. palatine registries for Lancaster and Durham are at Preston and We alluded above (p. 25) to the statute 17 Car. 2, c. 8, whereby Durham respectively (but as to Durham, see ante, p. 106). a judgment could be entered up against a defendant who died after
Lands in Middlesex and Yorkshire. For an account of the Mid- verdict and before judgment, provided such judgment was entered dlesex and Yorkshire Registry Acts, and of searches to be made in up within two terms after verdict. This provision was re-enacted the registers, the reader is referred to the articles in 30 SOLICI- by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 76), TORS' JOURNAL, PP. 750, 760, where it is pointed out that the York. s. 139. The statute 17 Car. 2, c. 8, was repealed by 42 & 43 shire Registries Act, 1884 (section 20), makes provision for official Vict. c. 59, as to the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, searches, and for the issue of certificates of the results (section 21), and generally by 46 & 47'Vict. c. 49 (s. 3), but (section 7) with a which (section 23) protect solicicors, trustees, executors, agents, saving so far as it applies, or may have been by Order in Council or other persons in a fiduciary position, from responsibility" for applied, to the court of the county palatine of Lancaster, or to any loss or damage or injury that may arise from any error any inferior court of civil jurisdiction. In R. S. C., 1883, XVII., in” such certificates ; but they are not made conclusive in 1, the provisions of 17 Car. 2, c. 8, above cited, are inserted (but favour of purchasers. Under these Acts a judgment does not without the limitation of two years). at law affect purchasers until it is registered in the local register ; but it was held in equity that the lands are bound in the hands of a purchaser who had notice of an unregistered judg- p. 105), in the 5th paragraph, line 44, for “ 23 and 24 Vict...
*** In the article upon Judgments published last week (ante, ment at the date of his contract—i.e., that notice supplies the want 112” read “27 & 28 Vict... 112”; and in line 46, for this of registration (see 30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, p. 751). And notice Act” read “23 & 24 Vict. c. 38.” 'On p. 108, 2nd column, in after contract, but before payment of purchase-money, would, it is the last paragraph under the heading "Judgments of Inferior apprehended, operate to give the judgment creditor a lien on the pur- Courts," the words “and by the proviso chase-money see ante, pp. 4, 73). But under the Yorkshire Regie- are misplaced. They should be inserted in the first paragraph,of tries Act, 1884 (30 SOLICITORS' Journal, 760), s. 14, no person is to the heading after the words “judgments of the superior courts.” lose priority by actual or constructive notice, except in cases of actual fraud. The statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 did not repeal the Registry Acts, and they are to be read together with that statute. The effect is that (as to judgments which require registration under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110) a judgment must be registered both in metropolitan police magistracy which has been offered to him by the
It is stated that Mr. Montagu Williams has accepted the vacant the London Registry and in the local registry (Sugd. V. & P. 546), Home Secretary.
to the sheriff”