Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

ALEXANDER & SHEPHEARD,
Printers,

LONSDALE BUILDINGS, CHANCERY LANE, W.C

State a Arden. H

Arnott v Avery's Rankes v Bannaty graph (

Barker v
Barnetts
in Tra
Bertina, I
Mills an
Birmingh
Lon int
Co, 19
Bisete v Ja
Blairg
Biske v M
London:
Bolton N
Co. 703
Boswelly C
Bray v Card
Buckmaster
Calvert v T
| Campbell v
Case Bourne
and Avery
Challonier v
Clarke, Re, C
Clough, R
Joint-Stoc
Coleman v Li
Collier v Cha
Commercial E

Re, 10
Counsell v L
Loan and D

Cox, Patters
Crears v Hunt
Crompton v
Electric Lig
Crosby, Re, M
Crossley, Ro. M
Crowther v E
Croydon U. a
dians of Peg
Dadswell v Ja
Davies Brother
Dawes v Founts

[blocks in formation]

Dickson v Gre

Co, 123

Dyott v Nevill

Easton Londo

Easy, Re, Ex pa
Eberles Hotels
(Limited v Je
Eden v Weardal
Eden v Weardale
Ellis v Stewart, S
Estaile v City of
Falcke v The N
surance Co, 109
Furbery Cobb, C
Gappy Ben 1. 477

Galstrom v Tall
Goring v Lloyd,
Grey, Re, Acason

Gowany Wright.

Hall v Bromley, 4

Hamill v Lilley, 3

Harris v Rothwe

Harsant v Blain

558

Harwood, Re, 442 Hastings, Re, Hal

Helmore v Smith,
Hobson and Howe

Hockey
Evans an
Hotchkin's Settled
Hughes v Little,
Hull, Barnsky, and
way Co Yorksh
Coal Co, 315

Hume, Re. 232,93
Hunt v Archer,

Indus, The, 123

Irwell v Eden, 321

Kurtz v Spence, 62

Knight y Coales, 567

Ladywell Mining Co well Mining Co v H Lancashire Cotton Ex parte Conelly, 4 Lea Facey, 642 Lever v Goodwin, 492 Linwood v Andrews,

' Journal

,

[blocks in formation]

Allcard v Skinner, 634

Apthorpe v Apthorpe, 461

Little, Re, (91

REPORTS OF CASES.

London Celluloid Co, Re, 10

Vincent v Vincent, 252

Walbrook & Co, v Jones and Lewis, CO
Lyon v Morris; Mutual Loan Fund Walker v General Mutual Investment
Association, Claimants, 493
Macalpin v Young, 409

Mallet v Hanley and Another, 141, 343

Arbitration between Secretary of Maple & Co v Earl of Shrewsbury,

State and Fletcher, Re, 200

Arden, Re, 675

Arnott v Hayes, 676

Avery's Patent, Re, 263, 643

Bankes v Small, 591, 624

Bannatyne v Direct Spanish Telegraph Co, 76

Barangah Oil Refining Co, Re, 607
Barker v Purvis, 155

Barnetts, Hoares, & Co v South Lon-
don Tramway Co, 477
Bernina, The, Armstrong and Others v
Mills and Others. 216

Birmingham and District Land Co v
London and North-Western Railway
Co, 109

Biscoe v Jackson, 410
Blaiberg v Beckett, 9

Blake v Mayor and Corporation of
London, 492

Bolton v Natal Land and Colonization Co, 703

Boswell v Coaks, 811

Bray v Gardener, 231

Buckmaster v Buckmaster, 281

Calvert v Thomas and Lloyd, 557

Campbell v Campbell, 378

Casebourne & Co v Houston & Co

and Avery & Co, 659

Challender v Royle, 676

Clarke, Re, Coombe v Carter, 676 Clough, Re, Bradford Commercial

Joint-Stock Banking Co v Cure, 269 Coleman v Llewellyn, 75 Collier v Chadwick, 27

Commercial Bank of South Australia, Re, 10

Counsell v London and Westminster Loan and Discount Co, 702

Cox, Patterson, & Co v Bruce & Co, 108 Crears v Hunter, 612

Crompton v Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corporation, 363 Crosby, Re, Munns v Burn, 231 Crossley, Re, Munns v Burn, 347 Crowther v Elgood, 252

Croydon Union, Guardians of v Guar

dians of Reigate Union, 507

Dadswell v Jacobs, 200

Davies Brothers & Co v Davies, 691
Dawes v Fountaine, 231

Dickson v Great Northern Railway
Co, 123

Dyott v Nevill, 253

Easton v London Joint-Stock Bank, 76
Easy, Re, Ex parte Hill & Hymans, 702
Eberles Hotels and Restaurant Co
(Limited) v Jonas and Brothers, 284
Eden v Weardale Iron and Coal Co, 183 |
Eden v Weardale Coal and Iron Co, 378
Ellis v Stewart, 362

Esdaile v City of London Union, 642 Falcke v The Scottish Imperial Assurance Co, 109

Furber v Cobb, 330

Gapp v Bond, 477

Goldstrom v Tallerman, 60

Goring v Lloyd, 316

Gowan v Wright, 141

Grey, Re, Acason v Greenwood, 316

Hall v Bromley, 442

Hamill v Lilley, 362

Harris v Rothwell, 392

[ocr errors]

691

Martin, Re; Land, Building, Investment, and Cottage Improvement Co v Martin, 232

Marrett, Re, Chalmers v Wingfield,

575

Mills' Estate, Re, 41

Mineral Water Bottle Exchange an 1 Trade Protection Society v Booth & Co, 703

Morgan, Re, Owen v Morgan, 477 Morgan v Hardy (Fothergill, third party), 346

Mowatt v Castle Steel and Ironworks
Co, 44

Muffett, Re, Jones v Mason, 442
Mutrie v Binney, 391

Mysore Reefs Gold Mining Co, Re,

10

Nathan, Newman, & Co, Re, 253
Naylor and Spendla, Re, 141
Newbigging v Adam, 155

New City Constitutional Club, Re,

232

Newman & Co v Pinto & Sons, 558 Newport (Monmouth) Slipway Co v Paynter, 45

Norman and Another v Ricketts, 124 North Central Wagon Co v Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co, 124, 300

North and South-Western Junction
Railway Co V Brentford Union
Assessment Committee, 426

Official Receiver (as Trustee of Izon, a
Bankrupt) v Tailby, 75
Oppert v Beaumont, 216

Oriental Bank Corporation, Re, 507 Owens College, Manchester v Overseers of the Poor of Chorlton-upon-Medlock, 200

Palliser v Gurney, 643
Palmer v Mallett, 643

Parker, Re, and Beech's Contract, 252
Peperno v Harmiston, 154

Picker v London and County Banking Co (Limited), 315

Pike, Sons & Co v Ongley and Thorn

ton 377

Platt, Re, 607

Price, Re, 201

Proctor v Bennis, 691

Purkiss v Holland; Cooper, Claimant, 702

Purser v Worthing Local Board, 477
Queen v Tyne Boiler Works Co, 93
Reeves v Fowle, 92

Reg. (on the Prosecution of J. Pritchard) v the Mayor and Corporation of Bangor, 108

Reg. v Judge of the Chelmsford
County Court and Clarke, 426
Reg. v Lord Penzance, 441

Reid v Explosives Co (Limited), 441
Reynolds v Coleman, 675
Richards v Jenkins, 300

[ocr errors][merged small]

Harsant v Blaine, Macdonald, & Co, Sailing Ship Garston Co v Hickie, Bor

558

[blocks in formation]

man & Co, 27

"Sara," The, Baker v Owners of Ship "Sara," 574

Schneider v Bond, 426
Shaw v Smith and Peace, 154
Shearwood, Re, 124

Sheppard v Scinde, Punjaub, and
Delhi Railway Co, 591

Sion College, Re, Ex parte Corporation of London, 378

South Wales Mineral Railway Co v Davies, 110

Spencer's Will, Re, 691

Strangways, Re, Hickley v Strangways, 75

Swanston, Re (an Infant), 427

[blocks in formation]

Swindell and Another v Bulkeley and Commercial Bank of South Australia,

Another, 124

Symonds v Symonds, 591
Thomas v Doughty, 300
Thomas v Quartermaine, 347
Trade-Mark "Normal," Re, 301
Tussaud, Re, 703

Van Duzer's Trade-Mark, Re; Re
Leafe's Trade-Mark, 253

[blocks in formation]

Critchley's Trust's, Re, 575
Crookes, Re, 251
Cunningham, Re, 111
Cunningham & Co, Re, 576
Curry, Re, Gibson v Way, 233
Cutler v North London Railway Co,

395

Darlington Forge Co, Re, 217
Davies Bros., & Co. v Davies, 331
Day v Sykes, Walker, & Co, 155
Dickson v Murray, 493

Direct Spanish Telegraph Company (Limited), Re, 142

District Bank of London, Re, 427
Donnelly v Donnelly, 45

Dudley's, Countess of, and London and North-Western Railway Co's Contract, Re, 317

E. C. Powder Co (Limited), Re, 443 Easton v London Joint Stock Bank, 812 Eden v Weardale Iron and Coal Co,

302

Edmonds v Blaina Furnaces Cɔ, 553
Edwards v Stephens, 127

Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance
Co, 693

Fairlamb and others v Beaumont, 272 Fawcett v Urwin, 331

Fenessy v Rabbits & Sons, 316
Fleming v Fleming & Lemon, 95
Fletcher, Re, Smith v Fletcher, 318
Flint Coal and Cannel Co (Limited),
Re, 183

Foli v Devonshire Club, 592
Fowler, Re, 77

Fox v Rothwell, 303

France, Re, France v Clark. 23

Fraser v Province of Brescia Steim
Tramways Co (Limited), 452
French v Hope, 251

Fusee Vesta Co, v Bryant & May, 201
Gardiner, Re, Jones v Gardiner, 318
Gas Light and Coke Co v Herbert
Smith & Co, 12

Gaulard and Gibbs' Patent, Re, 181
Gee v Bell, 379

Gibbons' Trusts, Re, 677

Goodfellow v Prince, 201

Goodman v Robinson, Brown, Janson, & Co, 127

Gray, Re, Acason v Greenwood, 28 Great Western Steamship Co (Limited), Re, 61

Gregson, Re, Christison v Bolam, 592 Gregson's Trusts, Re, 94

Grimmett's Trusts, Re, 269

Guilbert-Martin v Kerr & Jubb, 62

Hall v Comfort, 29

Hanley and Another v Mallett, 61

Hargrave v Kettlewell, 110

Harris, G (deceased), Re, Harris v Harris, 443

Harris v Rothwell, 27

Harrison, Re, Parry v Spencer, 126

Harrison v Harrison, 319

Hartley, Re, Stedman v Dunster, 303

Harvey v Oliver, 644, 679

Hastings, Re, Hallett v Hastings, 60
Hatchard v Mege, 395

[blocks in formation]

Keily v Stevens, 125

y Mayor of Liverpool, 318 Reeve v Fowle, 29

Keswick Old Brewery Co (Limited), Reichel v Bishop of Oxford, 184
Re, 10

Kewney v Attrill, 142

King v Chamberlayne, 679

Knight, Re, Knight v Burgess, 285
Knight, Re, Knight v Gardner, 644
Lacon v Tyrell, 364

Lambert, Re (deceased), 125

Land, Building, Investment, and Cot-
tage Improvement Co v Martin. 217
Leamington Priors Gas Co, v Davis, 95
Lea, Re, Lea v Cooke, 251

Leigh v Leigh, 91

Leslie v Cave, 11, 380

Lever & Co, v Goodwin Bros, 110
Loder, Re, 28

London and Provincial Electric Light-
ing and Power Co (Limited), Re,
Hale's Case, 10

London and Yorkshire Bank (Limited),
v Pritt, T. E., 607

London, Mayor and Corporation of, Ex
parte. Re Zion College, 61
Lloyd v Gordon, 286

Lysaght, Re, Blythev Baumgartner, 233
Magnus v Queensland National Bank

591

[blocks in formation]

Rhodes, Re, Rhodes v Rhodes, 677
Richardson, H. T. (Deceased), Re,
Shuldham v Royal National Lifeboat
Institution, 478

Richards, Re, Shenstone v Brock, 592
Riley to Streatfield, Re, 142
Rob v Rob, 494

Roberts, Re, Evans v Thomas, 558
Rollason, Re, Rollason v Rollason, 233
Royal Liver Friendly Society, Re, 269
Tiplady v Royal Liver Friendly
Society, 575

Ruddiman's Trusts, Re, 271, 331
St Andrew's Hospital, Northampton,
v Shearsmith, 608

St Botolph without Bishopsgate Parish
Savile v Couper, 679
Estate, Re, 380

Schmidt's Trade-Mark, Re, 234

Scott (otherwise Sebright) v Sebright,

62

[blocks in formation]

Neath Harbour Smelting and Rolling Thomas v Exeter Flying Post Co, 365

Works (Limited), Re, 427

Newbegin (deceased), Re, 660

New Hollingbourne Paper Mills Co,
Re, 703

Newport (Mon) Slipway Co (Limited',
v Paynter, 11

Nixon, Edward, Re, 91

North Brazilian Sugar Factories (Limited), Re, 125

Northumberland, Duke of, v Bowman

479

Oakey & Sons v Dalton, 591
O'Kelly y Callaghan, 269

Olley v Fisher, 95

Ongley v Chatham Local Board, 576
Oriental Bank Corporation, Re, 363, 492
Outlay Assurance Association, Re, 233
Oxford Building and Investment
Society, Re, 46

Parkinson, Re, In the Matter of a
Prosecution by the Treasury, Reg. v
Gershon, 365

Partington, Re, Partington v Allen, 704
Fashley v Chapman, 679

Payne, Re, Rea v Ashmead, 317

Pearce, Re, McLean v Smith, 285

Thompson, In the Goods of, 181
Tomkinson v South-Eastern Railway
Co, 461

Toogood's Trusts. Re, 493
Toomer, Re, Hughes v Bennett, 678
Towgood v Pirie & Sons, 251
Troitzsch v Rees, 645
Trufort, Re, Trafford v Blanc, 661
Tucker, Re, Bouchier v Gordon, 270
Tunnel Mining Co, Re, 443

Turner, In the Goods of, 112

Union Bank of London v Kent and
Others. 677

United Telephone Co, v Walker, 155
Unwin v Buck, 379

Veale & Co, v Automatic Boiler Feeder
(Limited), 364

Vernon v Hallam, 111
Walker v Clarke, 232
Walker v General Mutual Investment
Building Society, 626
Wallasy Local Board v Gracey, 528
Ward, Lock, & Co v Scott, 91
Ward v Dudley, 442

Warden, Re, Browett v Warden, 234
Watson, Re, Carlton v Carlton, 608
Webster v Southey, 478
Weston v Levy, 364

Petre (Lord), Re, Lord Petre v Petre, Whiteley v Barley, 364

Penny v Hanson, 318

Pereira, Re, 560

[blocks in formation]

--v Andrews, 217

Phipps v Jackson, 286

Phosphor Bronze Co, v Gospel Oak
Wire Co, 11

Pierce v Williams; Jones, Claimant, 29
Pike v Ongley, 365

Pilsen Joel and General Electric Light
Co, Re, 126

Pommery v Apthorpe, 143
Portishead Warehouse Co, v Bristol
and Portishead Pier Railway Co, 364
Postmaster-General v Green, 645
Powell Bennett (Deceased), Re, 677
Prater, H. (Deceased), Re, 660
Price. In the Goods of, 348

Purret and Green v Duke of Bedford,
112

Reg. v Judge of City of London Court,

95

Whistler and Richardson, Re, 559
Wickham, Re, Marony v Taylor, 255
Wicks v Wicks, 2 7
Wigram v Fryer, 508
Wilcock, Re, 269

Williams, Re, Jones v Williams, 678
Williams' Trusts, Re, 626
Williamson v Farnell, 330
Winter v Baker, 429

York, Re (deceased), Atkinson
Powell, 394
Yorkshire Railway Co, v Mullan, 379
Ystalyfera Gas Co, Re, 270

Solicitors' Cases.

Allen, Re, 78, 185
Bakewell v Cornish, 79
Appleby, Re, 396

[ocr errors]

V

Blair and Girling v Cordner, 560, 662
Boswell v Coaks, 509, 661

Brown v Great Western Railway Co,
445

Castle (G.), Re, 560

Corsellis, Re, Lawton v Elwes, 256
Cray v Wray, 608

Curtis and Betts, Re, 578

D'Aragon, Ex parte, In the Matter of
a Firm of Solicitors, 680
Ebrard v Gassier, 30
Eley. Re, 662, 812
Faulkner, Re, 661

Ford v Incorporated Law Society, 450
Gale v Kite, 63

Grey's Brewery Co, Re, 219
Guy v Churchill, 444

Herbert, Re, 235
Harris, Powell, and Goodale, Re, 255, 365

Hester v Hester, 203

Hettihewage Siman Appu v Queen's
Hilleary and Taylor, Re, 495
Advocate, Ceylon, 128
Holloway, Re, Young v Holloway, 463
Kellock, T. C. & J. F. (Solicitors),
Jones (a Solicitor), Re, 464

Re, 479

Litchfield v Jones, 693

London, Mayor, &c, of, Ex parte, Re
Metropolitan and District Railways
Act, 186

Macdougall v Knight, 332
Munton v Lord Truro, 615
Osborne v Milman, 319

Park, Alfred (Solicitor), Re, Ex parte
Incorporated Law Society, 444
Peace and Ellis, Re, 912
Phillips, Ex parte, Re Watson, 523
Postlethwaite, Re, Postlethwaite
Rickman, 444

Pretty and Others v Fowke, 693
Pybus, W. M. (a Solicitor), Re, 480
Ravea v Stevens & Sons. 63
Rawson, J. (a Solicitor), Re, 509
Russell, Ex parte, Re Elderton, 235
Scales v Moseley, 496
Scarlett, Re, 46

Solicitor, In the matter of a, 63
Staniar v Evans, 157

Sykes, Re (Deceased), 185
Wadsworth, Re, Rhodes v Sugden, 30
Ward v Marshall, 429
Whitehead v Hall, 445
Wray, Aaron, Re, 495, 577

Bankruptcy Cases.

V

[blocks in formation]

Broderick, Ex parte, Re Beetham, 349
Brown, Ex parte, Re M'Henry, 576
Burgess, Ex parte, Re Burgess, 593
Carr, Ex parte, Re Carr, 96
Dever, Ex parte, Re Suse, 286
Feast, Ex parte, Re Feast, 286
Foreman, Ex parte, Re Hann, 203
Gibson, Ex parte, Re Lamb, 217
Godfrey, Ex parte, Re Lazarus, 395
Grepe, Ex parte, Re Grepe, 396
Kearsley, Ex parte, Re Genese, 78
Langworthy, Re, Ex parte Lang-
worthy, 693

Lindsey, Ex parte, Re Bates, 560
Lovering & Co, Ex parte, Re Aysh-
ford, 508

Nelson, Ex parte, Re Hockaday, 203
Norton, Ex parte, Re Mansel, 577
Official Receiver, Ex parte, Re Gould,

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Fassett, Re, Wells v Dearle, 799
Field & Co,v The American Exhibition
(Limited), 745

Firth, Re, Firth v Clarke, 781

Forest Iron and Steel Co, (Limited) v
Barry Dock and Railway Co, 726
Graduated County Schools Association
(Limited), Re. 717

Hallett v The Marquis of Bristol, 731
Hoare v Gray, 44

Howe Machine Co (Limited), The, 762
Inderwick, Re. Ex parte Hanson, 705
Jay v Ladler, 744

Jonas v Long, 717, 727

Law (WF) and John Nichol's & Co,
Re, 717

Longbottom v Woodhead, 796
Magnay, Re, Tipper v Tipper, 796
Matthews v The Mayor and Corpora-
tion of Sheffield, 773

Middlesex Manufacturing Co (Limited)

[blocks in formation]

Munson v Odiam; Munson v Jordan;
Munson v Donald, 705

Pedder v Eiloart, 705
Plake v Hall, 744, 796

Preston v Etherington; Etherington
v Etherington, 717

Shingleton Ice Co (Limited), Re, Bett
v Shingleton Ice Co (Limited), 705
Ship Edderside, Re, Bell and Others v
Edderside Ship Owning Co (Limited),

744

Taunton v Falla, 762, 772

Thompson v The Mayor and Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon, 772 Timson v Wilson, 745

Tucker v Prior, 784

West of England Paper Mills Co (Limited), Re, 714

Wood's Ships' Woodite Protection Co (Limited), Re, 726

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors]

CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.

Co

In the Solicitors' Journal. Blaiberg v. Beckett

9

Commercial Bank of South Aus tralia, Re

[merged small][ocr errors]

10

[blocks in formation]

Cadman v. Cadman

V

on

[blocks in formation]

of Elmley

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

Hubbard, Ex parte. In re Hardwick Lewis v. Ramsdale

Reg. v. Inhabitants of Southampton

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

LONDON, OCTOBER 30, 1886.

CURRENT TOPICS.

[blocks in formation]

MR. ROBERT SEPPINGS GODFREY has been appointed a Registrar of the Supreme Court, to act in the Chancery Division, in succession to Mr. FARRER, resigned.

THE CONSOLIDATED Bankruptcy Rules were published towards the close of last week. They constitute a bulky volume of 200 pages, and are, in the main, an incorporation of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1883, and the rules subsequently made under the Bankruptcy Act. We were enabled to point out in advance the only changes of any importance, in our articles, 30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, pp. 781, 793. The Consolidated Rules came into operation on Monday last, and although the alterations made in the previous rules are trifling, we think that the profession has some reason to complain of the very short interval which elapsed between the publication of the rules and their coming into opera

tion.

WE PUBLISH elsewhere a new order, made on Monday last, as to fees and percentages in respect of proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, in substitution for the order issued at the close of 1883. As soon as that order appeared we pointed out the large increase in many of the charges upon the amount charged upon similar proceedings under the Act of 1869. Several of the fees to which we then drew particular attention are now modified. Thus, the fee on applications for discharge is now reduced from £2 to £1 10s., which is to include the expense of Gazetting; and the ad valorem fee upon an application to the court to approve a scheme or composition has been reduced to 2s. 6d. on each £25 of estimated assets or amount of composition above £5,000. But the greatest change is in the portion of the scale relating to the celebrated £6 per cent. on the net assets realized or brought to credit by the official receiver. This fee is now to be estimated on a sliding scale, falling from £5 per cent. on the first £1,000 to £1 when above £10,000; and it is to be chargeable on the net assets after deducting sums paid to secured creditors in respect of their securities. There is added another sliding scale percentage on the amount distributed as dividend by the official receiver when acting as trustee under

[ocr errors]

adjudications, schemes or compositions; and fees are added for the official receiver acting as interim receiver, and for the official receiver supervising a special manager, or the carrying on of a debtor's business. The provisions of the direction as to stamps affixed to the former order are now altered and amplified by a separate order.

THE LAMENTED DEATH of Lord MONKSWELL will not render necessary any further judicial appointments. It is upon the death of two paid members of the Judicial Committee, not upon the death of one, that such appointments may be made. The Judicial Committee Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 91), provided for the appointment of four paid members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The power to appoint successors was limited 6 to two years after the passing of the Act; but the Appellate 7 Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), s. 14, provides that, whenever any two of these paid judges shall have died or resigned, her Majesty may successively appoint a third and fourth Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, to serve in the House of Lords as official peers and salaried judges to reinforce the two "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary," who, under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, sit in the House of Lords. The four paid members of the Judicial Committee originally appointed were Lord PEACOCK. The first double vacancy was created in 1881 by the MONKSWELL, Sir M. SMITH, Sir JAMES COLVILE, and Sir BARNES retirement of Sir M. SMITH subsequent to the death of Sir JAMES COLVILE in 1880. Lord MONKSWELL is only the first of the second pair of paid Judicial Committee judges, and the practical union of the House of Lords and Judicial Committee into one court, so far as the personnel of judges obliged to sit is concerned, which it was the object of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to bring about, will not be consummated until Sir BARNES PEACOCK should complete the second double vacancy.

THE CONTROVERSY to which Lord MONKSWELL'S appointment gave rise, though dating so far back as 1871, will still be fresh in the minds of our readers. The Judicial Committee Act provided that the person appointed should be "specially qualified" by being or having been "judge of one of the superior courts." Sir R. COLLIER sat a few days in the Court of Common Pleas for the mere purpose of gaining a qualification, and the late Lord Chief Justice of England the Act. strenuously and properly contended that this was an evasion of Sir R. COLLIER, we may remark, sat long enough to deliver two reported judgments (see Townshend v. Marylebone Overseers (7 C. P. 143) and Ford v. Boon (1b. 150), both of them registration cases. Singularly enough he seems never to have been made a serjeant. His name finds no place in the list of serjeants to be found in Pulling's "Order of the Coif," at p. xvii., though, curiously enough, we believe that he was described in the Gazette as serjeant.

THE ANXIETY to obtain an allotment of shares in "Arthur Guinness, Son, & Co., Limited," has led to much discussion as to the duty of the directors in allotting the shares among the numerous applicants. It has been contended that the direc tors have no discretion in the matter, but are bound to allot the shares pro ratá among all the applicants. The advocates of this view appear to rest their contention on the notion that the prospectus constitutes an offer of shares, which offer is accepted, and a contract constituted, by the application for shares. But in Re Richmond Hill Hotel Co., Pellatt's case (2 Ch. 527), Lord CAIRNS said, "that where an individual applies for shares

in a company, there being no obligation to let him have any, there must be a response by the company, otherwise there is no contract." The prospectus is, in fact, nothing more than an invitation for offers to take shares (see Spencer v. Harding, 5 C. P. 561). It appears to be forgotten that a discretion as to allotment of shares is almost always expressly vested in the directors by the articles of association of a company. The articles of "Arthur Guinness, Son, & Co." provide (article 7 (2)) that, "The authorized share capital of the company (and forfeited or surrendered shares) may be issued by the board to such persons, at such times, and on such terms, as to discount or otherwise, and for such purposes of the company, as they see fit."

THE " OBJECTS CLAUSE in the memorandum of association of "Arthur Guinness, Son, & Co., Limited" (perhaps owing to the decision in Guinness v. Land Corporation of Ireland, 22 Ch. D. 349), certainly does not err on the side of restriction. There are no fewer than fifteen "objects" specified, in addition to the usual general clause at the close of the specification. They include power to "act as bankers"; to "undertake, subscribe to, or otherwise aid undertakings for purposes of opening out trade or making experiments or investigations in connection with any of the objects of the company, or any class or department of its business, directly or indirectly"; and a cla use, the like of which we have not seen before, which provides that one of the objects of the company shall be:"To provide for the welfare of persons in the employ ment of the company, or formerly engaged in any business acquired by the company, and the wives, widows, and families of such persons, by grants of money, pensions, or other payments, and by providing or subscribing towards schools and places of recreation or otherwise, and hospitals, dispensaries, medical and other attendance, and other assistance as the company shall think fit, and to form, subscribe to, or otherwise aid benevolent, religious, scientific, national, or other institutions or objects which shall have any moral or other claims to support or aid by the company by reason of the locality of its operations or otherwise."

THE RETIREMENT of Mr. ANDERSON, Q.C., from the office of Official Referee seems to render it open to the authorities to reconsider the number of the Official Referees. By section 83 of the Judicature Act, 1883, it is provided that "there shall be attached to the Supreme Court permanent officers called official referees, for the trial of such questions as shall, under the provisions of this Act, be directed to be tried by such referees. The number and the qualification of the persons to be so appointed from time to time, and the tenure of their offices, shall be determined by the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the presidents of the divisions of the High Court, or a majority of them (of which majority the Lord Chief Justice of England shall be one) and with the sanction of the Treasury"; and by section 84 "all officers assigned to perform duties with respect to the Supreme Court generally "-which term appears to include official referees-"shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor." When the Act of 1873 came into force there were established five divisions of the High Court, but on the occasion of the merger of the Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions into the Queen's Bench Division under Order in Council of December, 1880, it was provided that the Lord Chief Justice of England should exercise all the powers formerly exercised by the presidents of the merged divisions. The number and qualification of the official referees, therefore, seems to rest with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the President of the Probate, &c., Division, with the sanction of the Treasury, while the appointment is to be made by the Lord Chancellor.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON tells "the whole body of brewers," through the columns of the Times, that he "sees no reason whatever to alter his practice in dealing with applications for licences; that practice being to refuse them all, unless evidence is laid before him which convinces him that by granting them he should be benefiting the public, whose servant he is, and not the servant of the brewers," and we are probably entitled to assume that no evidence would convince Sir WILFRID LAWSON that he would be benefiting the public

The

by granting a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The question as to how far justices of the peace are justified in refusing to consider whether a discretion ought to be exercised in a particular way upon the ground that they conscientiously believe that to exercise it in that way, though according to law, would be undesirable, appears to be conclusively answered by Reg. v. Boteler (12 W. R. 466), in which justices were compelled to issue a distress warrant in a case in which they had declined to do so on the ground that the statute (2 & 3 Vict. c. 84) empowering them to act was unjust, COCKBURN, C.J., pointing out that the justices had no business to enter into any such consideration. particular question arising upon the construction of the Licensing Acts, which is not quite so clear, has two branches, that connected with the refusal of (1) the general licence, to which Sir W. LAWSON's more recent declarations apply; and (2) the occasional licence, out of the refusal of which the controversy originally sprung. As to the general licence, this, by section 1 of the Licensing Act, 1828, is granted to such persons as the justices in the execution of the powers of that Act, and in the exercise of their discretion, deem fit and proper." It is clear from Reg. v. Walsall Justices (3 C. L. R. 100) that every applicant for a licence is entitled to a hearing, and that to refuse a licence merely in pursuance of a general resolution to grant no more licences is so far illegal that a mandamus will issue to compel the justices to hear and determine the application at another meeting, but so long as each applicant has a formal hearing, the reasons of the bench for refusing the general licence appear to be quite immaterial in point of law. As to the occasional licence, the words of the statutes (25 Vict. c. 22, s. 13, and 26 & 27 Vict. c. 33, e. 20) are different, and are bare of judicial interpretation. By these enactments "it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, whenever they shall think it conducive to public convenience, comfort, and order, and with the consent in writing of a justice of the peace usually acting at the petty sessions for the petty sessional division within which the place of sale is situate," to authorize an excise officer to grant an occasional licence authorizing the holder to sell upon other than licensed premises, and " upon the occasion of any public dinner or ball to sell liquors during such hours, before or after sunrise or sunset, as shall be allowed and specified in that behalf in the consent " to be given by the justice for the granting of such occasional licence. In this case the Inland Revenue authorities take the initiative, and the justice of the peace has first a veto, and secondly, in the case of a dinner or ball, the power of extending a special privilege. In either case the functions of the justice of the peace appear to be ministerial rather than judicial, and it may be doubted whether, even if the most anti-liquor reasons were avowed by the non-consenting justice, a rehearing could be forced from him, or a selection of ball and dinner hours could be enjoined upon him by any legal proceedings whatever.

66

THE RECENT CASE before the Liverpool magistrates, in which the sons of a woman, divorced on the ground of her adultery and without any provision for maintenance, were ordered to contribute to the support of their mother, has drawn attention to the provision of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7, that" the father and grandfather, and the mother and grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, blind, lame, and impotent person, or other poor person not able to work, being of a sufficient ability, shall at their own charges relieve and maintain every such poor person." The Liverpool bench do not seem to have agreed with Serjeant SELLON's remark (4 East. 79) that the obligation to maintain imposed by the statute is "founded on the law of nature," and they are reported to have expressed an opinion that the case was a hard one for the sons, probably because the mother had not bestowed on them the usual maternal attention and oversight, and had by her own act forfeited the right to support by the father, who is still living. But it is to be remembered, on the other hand, that the statutory obligation is mutual, and that if the cases had been reversed, and the "impotent persons" had been the children, the mother, if "of sufficient ability," would have had to contribute to the support of children who might have cast her off. A case of even greater hardship came before the court in R. v. Munden (1 Stra. 190), where an order had been made by justices to compel a husband to support his wife's mother. This iniquitous order was reversed

« PreviousContinue »