Page images
PDF
EPUB

BANKRUPTCY CASES.

Ex parte NELSON, Re HOCKADAY-C. A. No. 1, 14th January. BANKRUPTCY-BILL OF SALE-VALIDITY STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION— SUBSTITUTION OF NEW BILL OF SALE FOR INVALID BILL OF SALE-BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1882, s. 8.

66

as

The question in this case was whether a bill of sale was invalid under the Bills of Sale Act of 1882 by reason of the consideration for it not having been "truly set forth" as required by section 8 of the Act. Section 8 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, required that a bill of sale should "set forth" the consideration for it, and section 8 of the Act of 1882 requires that a bill of sale shall "truly set forth" the consideration for it. In the present case a bill of sale had been given by the grantor to the grantee as security for money, and it was expressed to be made in consideration of £100 paid in 1882 and of £120 "now paid" by the grantee to the grantor. By this bill of sale the grantor assigned the goods to the grantee "as beneficial owner." On the 17th of April, 1886, the Court of Appeal, in Ex parte Stanford (17 Q. B. D. 259, 30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 418), decided that the use of the words, beneficial owner," rendered a bill of sale void under the Act of 1882, and, in consequence of this decision, the grantee, on the 26th of April, 1886, gave the grantor a new bill of sale in substitution for that of October, 1885. The new bill of sale was expressed to be made in consideration of the £220 "now paid" by the grantee to the grantor, but no money actually passed on its execution. The trustee in the bankruptcy of the grantor sought to set the bill of sale aside on the ground that the consideration was not truly stated in it, and it was urged that, even if, under the Act of 1878, the statement would have been held sufficient, on the authority of Credit Co. v. Potts (6 Q. B. D. 295), the insertion in section 8 of the Act of 1882 of the word "truly" made a difference, and that Credit Co. v. Potts did not apply. THE COURT OF APPEAL (Lord ESHER, M.R., and BOWEN and FRY, L.JJ.) held that the addition of the word " truly "made no difference, and that the case was undistinguishable from Credit Co. v. Potts. The business effect of the transaction was the same as if the £220 had been repaid by the grantor to the grantee, and re-advanced by him to the grantor on the execution of the new bill of sale, and, therefore, on the authority of that case, the consideration was "truly stated."-COUNSEL, Aspland, Q.C.; Cozens-Hardy, Q C., and T. Ribton. SOLICITORS, Spyer & Son; W. A. Willoughby.

[ocr errors]

Ex parte FOREMAN, Re HANN-C. A. No. 1, 17th January. BANKRUPTCY-APPEAL-LIMITATION OF RIGHT-APPEAL FOR SUM UNDER £50-LEAVE OF COURT-VALIDITY OF RULE-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883, 8. 104, SUB-SECTION 2 (d.); s. 127-BANKRUPTCY RULES, 1886, R. 129. In this case a question arose as to the validity of rule 129 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886 (which corresponds to rule 111 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1883), and which limits the right of appeal in certain cases. Rule 129 provides, by sub-section 2, that, "except by leave of the court, no appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be brought from any order relating to property when it is apparent from the proceedings that the money or money's worth involved does not exceed £50." Section 104 of the Act provides, by sub-section 2 (d), that "no appeal shall be entertained except in conformity with such general rules as may for the time being be in force in relation to the appeal.' By section 127: "(1) The Lord Chancellor may, from time to time, with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, make, revoke, and alter general rules for carrying into effect the objects of the Act; (2) all general rules made under the foregoing provisions of this section shall be laid before Parliament within three weeks after they are made, if Parliament is then sitting, and, if Parliament is not then sitting, within three weeks after the beginning of the then next session of Parliament, and shall be judicially noticed, and shall have effect as if enacted by this Act; (3) such general rules as may be required for purposes of this Act may be made at any time after the passing of this Act; (4) provided always that the said general rules so made, revoked, or altered shall not extend the jurisdiction of the court; (5) after the commencement of this Act no general rule under the provisions of this section shall come into operation until the expiration of one month after the same has been made and issued." An appeal from a county court, in a case of alleged fraudulent preference in which the value of the property involved was under £50, had been presented to a divisional court, and the court (Cave and Wiils, JJ.) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the county court judge had not given leave to appeal. It was urged that rule 129 was not justified by the power to make rules given by section 127; that it purported to take away in certain cases the right of appeal given by section 104 (2) "at the instance of any persons aggrieved"; that it did not, therefore, "carry into effect the objects of the Act"; and that it was void as being ultra vires. On the other hand, it was contended that sub-section 2 (d.) of section 104, taken in connection with section 127, justified the making of the rule, and that, at any rate, under section 127, the rule, even if it was in excess of the power, acquired statutory validity after it had been made and issued. THE COURT OF APPEAL (Lord ESHER, M.R., and BOWEN and FRY, L.JJ.) held that the rule was valid. Lord ESHER, M.R., said that it was not necessary to decide whether the rule, even if it were beyond the power, became, when it was once issued, equivalent to an Act of Parliament, and he should therefore express no opinion about it. He would only say that, if it should ever become necessary to decide the point, any court before which it came for decision must look at rules made by such a great judicial officer and approved by such a great officer of State, with

extreme care, and would be strongly inclined to the opinion that such persons had not exceeded their powers; of course, if the court thought they had, it would be bound to say so. As to the other point, it could not be denied that the case was within rule 129, and the only question was whether the rule was authorized by section 127. Looking at that section in connection with sub-section 2 (d.) of section 104, his lordship thought that the rule was within the power. Sub-section 2 (d.) of section 104 appeared to assume that there would be, from time to time, rules in force in relation to appeals, and those rules could only be derived from the power given by section 127 to the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, to make rules. BowEN, L.J., said that the question was one of the greatest importance. It was said that the rule was invalid because it imposed on the right of appeal a restriction not to be found in the Act, and that it was not within the scope of the authority to make rules given by section 127. It was urged that the rules might properly impose on an appellant a condition with which it would be in his own power to comply, but that it would be going beyond the authority to impose a condition with which it would be impossible for him to comply except with the consent of another person over whom he had no control. În his lordship's opinion sub-section 2 (d.) of section 104 went beyond the ordinary authority to make rules regulating the exercise of the right of appeal, and authorized the making of rules which would in some sense touch the right of appeal itself. Otherwise sub-section 2 (d.) of section 104 would not have been required at all, for the ordinary power of regulation was given by section 127. It could not be supposed that sub-section 2 (d.) of section 104 was merely superfluous. Its language was not very felicitous; but, looking at the whole scope of the Act, and at the fact that otherwise sub-section 2 (d.) would be superfluous, his lordship thought that it gave power to make a rule saying within what limit the right of appeal should be confined. His lordship would express no opinion about the other point beyond what the Master of the Rolls had said. FRY, L.J., concurred, basing his decision entirely on sub-section 2 (d.) of section 104, which he could not think was a mere repetition of the power conferred by section 127, but must give it a larger force. He thought it enabled the Lord Chancellor to impose a fetter on the right of appeal by imposing a limit of amount. -COUNSEL, Edward Clayton; H. T. Eve. SOLICITORS, Thomson & Ward; J. J. Chapman.

CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

HESTER v. HESTER-C. A. No. 2, 19th January. SOLICITOR-COSTS-ELECTION TO BE PAID UNDER OLD SYSTEM-" BEFORE UNDERTAKING ANY BUSINESS"-SOLICITOR COMMENCING BUSINESS UNDER IMPLIED GENERAL RETAINER-SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION ORDER OF AUGUST, 1882, RR. 2, 6.

The question in this case was whether solicitors had, before "undertaking" the business connected with the sale of some property, declared their election, under rule 6 of the Remuneration Order, that their remuneration should be according to the old system, as altered by schedule II. to the order. The action was brought to administer the trusts of a marriage settlement. Part of the property comprised in the settlement was a leasehold house which was subject to two mortgages. It was desired to sell the house, but there was a difficulty in doing so because the trustees of the settlement had been removed in the action, and no trustees had been appointed in their place. At the request of the solicitor of the plaintiffs in the action, made by a letter written to the solicitors who usually acted for the first mortgagees (who were the trustees of another settlement), the first mortgagees consented to exercise their power of sale, and an order was made by the court in the action, in June, 1884, authorizing the first mortgagees to sell the house for £800. The proposed purchaser, however, refused to proceed with the purchase, and ultimately another person was found who was willing to purchase the house for £775, and the court made another order sanctioning this sale. Some time in May, 1885, a draft contract for this sale was sent to the solicitors of the first mortgagees, and on the 4th of June, 1885, they wrote to the plaintiffs' solicitors telling them that the purchaser's solicitors had returned the draft contract approved, "subject to certain alterations which they have made therein, the principal one being that they have struck out a clause which we inserted, that, although the abstract should commence with the lease of the 6th of August, 1862, the vendors should not be bound, except at the purchaser's expense, to supply any abstract of title between such lease and the assignment to Mr. Hester. This we did because we find that the abstract with the title deeds, and which was delivered on Mr. Hester's mortgage, occupies fiftyseven brief sheets, and if to this is added-say three sheets for the abstract of the mortgage and the transfer to the present trustees, the mere copying would come, roughly, to £10, leaving, if the charges are made according to the scale, only £2 to cover the costs of the present sale. It is clear that we cannot undertake to act as vendors' solicitors upon these terms, and, as under the 6th of the General Rules (in pursuance of the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881) we are at liberty to elect that our remuneration shall be according to the system existing at the date of such orders as altered by schedule II., upon notice communicated to our client before undertaking the business, we wish to inquire whether, as representing the persons entitled to the equity of redemption, you will agree to our costs, as vendor's solicitors, being paid as if we had given such notice." On the 11th of June the plaintiffs' solicitor replied: "I do not see anything objectionable in your election to charge on the old scale as altered by schedule II." He added that he would inquire whether the second mortgagees had any objection, and on the next day he wrote

that the second mortgagees did not appear to have any objection. On the 13th of June the solicitors of the first mortgagees wrote to one of their own clients, telling them that the proposed purchaser had instructed his solicitors that he would give £775 for the house, and adding: "Inclosed I send you, for signature, as one of the vendors, the form of agreement which has been prepared, and which please sign and return to me, that I may obtain the signatures of your co-trustees." In the same letter the writer said: "I may mention, for the information of yourself and your co-trustees, that my firm elects that our remuneration should be according to the system existing previously to the Act as altered by schedule II. annexed to the order," adding an explanation of their reason for so doing. Before this letter was written the solicitors had not received any express instructions from the first mortgagees to act for them in the particular matter of the proposed sale, but they had acted on the implied authority derived from their general retainer. The first mortgagees afterwards assented to and adopted what had been done, and the sale was carried out. On the taxation of the first mortgagees' costs of the sale, under an order in the action which had directed that these taxed costs should be retained out of the proceeds of sale, the taxing master allowed only the scale fee, amounting to £12, though the cost of the abstract alone amounted to £12 10s. Kay, J., affirmed his decision, on the ground that the solicitors had "undertaken" the business before they declared their election under rule 6. But he was of opinion that the notice of election was given to the right persons, and that it would, if otherwise valid, have bound the second mortgagees. Neither the second mortgagees nor the mortgagees appeared to oppose the solicitors' application, though they were served with notice of it."

THE COURT OF APPEAL (COTTON, LINDLEY, and LOPES, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision. COTTON, L.J., said that the question was whether, before the letter of the 13th of June, the solicitors had "undertaken" the business in respect of which they were seeking to charge their clients. The court had already decided, in Re Allen (ante, p. 185), that the "business" meant any business which would be covered by the scale fee -i.e., any business" connected with" the particular business in respect of which the scale fee was prescribed. In the present case the solicitors had clearly before that date acted in matters which would be covered by the scale fee. But it was urged that they had not before then been instructed by the clients to act for them in the matter, or undertaken by any communication with them to act for them. Whatever might be the case if a solicitor commenced to act for a complete stranger to him before communicating with him, the solicitors in the present case had generally acted for the first mortgagees, and though his lordship did not forget the remark of James, L.J., that a man could not be said to keep a solicitor, yet, in such a case as the present, a solicitor was considered as having a general authority to do what was necessary for his client, though, of course, he had no power to bind the client by any contract without his consent. The solicitors, acting as solicitors for the first mortgagees, received the draft contract for sale, and afterwards communicated with their clients. What they had done was done on the assumption that they had an implied authority to act for them, and the clients did not repudiate this authority. The solicitors must be considered as having "undertaken" the business, not on the 13th of June, but at the earlier date they transacted business in the matter under the implied authority, which was afterwards ratified by the clients. The election was, therefore, too late, and the case was governed by Re Allen. It was suggested that there had been such an alteration in the terms of the contract for sale that the solicitors could not be considered as having undertaken the same business in the first instance as that which they afterwards carried out. That might be so if a contract was altered so as to relate to a different property, but in the present case the altered contract related to the same property, though some of the provisions were altered, and it could not be said that the solicitors did not undertake the same business. It was also suggested that, even if the solicitors had no right to elect, the clients were willing to agree that they should be remunerated under schedule II. But there was no evidence of this before the taxing master, and the point was not raised in the objections before him, and, therefore, by section 42 of rule 27 of order 65 of the R. S. C., 1883, the court was precluded from entertaining the point. But, even if it could do so, it would be a serious question whether, when the solicitors had lost the right to elect under rule 6, their clients could enter into an agreement with them to the prejudice of the second mortgagees. LINDLEY, L.J., agreed that the solicitors commenced the business before they had been specially requested by the clients to do so, and this distinguished the case from Re Allen. But they undertook the business on the faith of their general retainer by the clients, who afterwards ratified what they had done, and, under these circumstances, it could not be said that the business was not "undertaken" when it was first begun. It would not be right to say that business could in no case be undertaken by a solicitor unless there was previously an actual contract in relation to it between the solicitor and the client. LOPES, L.J., concurred. THE COURT, in the course of the argument, expressed their concurrence in the view of Kay, J., that the notice of election was given to the right persons so as to bind the second mortgagees. COUNSEL, Ingle Joyce. SOLICITORS, R. Smith & Wilmer.

The Prince of Wales has accepted the invitation of the Treasurer (Lord Herschell) and the benchers of Lincoln's-inn to dine with them on the "Grand day" of Hilary Term, at that Inn next week. The invitation was sent to the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Treasurer of the Middle Temple.

[ocr errors]

LAW SOCIETIES.

CARDIFF INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

The first annual meeting of this society was held on the 13th inst., has occurred to me that, in the address which I am about to deliver as when the president (Mr. Waldron) delivered the following address:-It part of my obligations towards you in the position of president of our society, it may interest you if, in the first place, I briefly recall, in a retrospect of my own experience, the condition of our profession when I first joined it, with some of the reforms which have taken place in the last thirty-five years during which I have been in practice, and the prospects which lie before us in the future. When I was first articled office hours commenced at 9 a.m., and (with an interval of an hour for dinner in the middle of the day and half an hour for tea between five and six p.m.) terminated at eight p.m. The copying press (if invented) was not in general use, and all letters were copied by hand in a letter book. The magic words "as beneficial owner" had not then shortened the voluminous conveyances which were usual in those days, and legal documents were full of tedious reiteration, as some of us may remember in the wordy drafts of wills, leases, conveyances, settlements, pleadings in civil actions, and, indeed, in all legal documents. This, of necessity, made more work for copying clerks and lengthened office hours. I digress for a moment to observe that it would be curious to ascertain how many copying clerks were thrown out of employment by the introduction of the words as beneficial owner." Previous to the passing of "the Act for the more easy recovery of Small Debts, in 1646," all actions for sums above 40e. coverable in the old county courts and some local courts of limited jurisdiction. were brought in the superior courts, while the lesser amounts were reWithin four years of the passing of the Act of 1886 the jurisdiction of the Act of that year was extended to the recovery of debts not exceeding £50, and this was followed by conferring on the new county courts a limited jurisdiction in equity, in suits by creditors, legatees, devisees, and next of kin, for the execution of trusts, for foreclosure, or redemption, specific, performance, partition, the dissolution and winding up of partnerships and admiralty When I came to Cardiff in the year 1852 there were only nineteen solicitors here, with a population of something under nineteen thousand. There are now, I believe, about one hundred solicitors, and ratio is about one to every thousand. Of the nineteen solicitors who the population one hundred thousand. So that it would appear that the were here on my arrival I regret to say only two remain. In my earlier practice proceedings in bankruptcy (in the larger failures) were conducted in the bankruptcy court at Bristol, which had jurisdiction over the whole of South Wales and Monmouthshire. Imprisonment for debt had not then been abolished, and the lesser defaulters, after a probation in the debtors' ward of the county jail, were whitewashed in the old insolvent court for small debtors. The course of business in the Bristol court in the more important failures was usually as follows:-A debtor unable to meet his engagements executed a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors and placed his affair in the hands of an accountant. If the accountant did not succeed in inducing the creditors to concur in the deed, a hostile creditor made it an act of bankruptcy and presented a petition. The solicitor who attested the execution of the deed was summoned to Bristol to produce and prove it, and with some other formal evidence the estate of the debtor was taken possession of by the official assignee. Then commenced a struggle for proofs and proxies to obtain the choice of creditors' assignee, with whom the administration of the estate then public examination were a safeguard against fraud and reckless trading, remained. It was a clumsy and expensive process, but the terrors of the realized and divided among the creditors as they are now by the Board of and I am not sure that estates were not as quickly and economically Chancery were a scandal to the country. A suit relating to a question Trade. In the times I am speaking of the proceedings in the Court of between parties, which might be determined by a Vice-Chancellor in a short trial, was usually postponed from term to term and might take years to settle. The taking of evidence by affidavit, then in vogue, was not the best test of truth and fact, and the whole proceeding by bill and answer and the subsequent proceedings were heartbreaking to the litigants but extremely profitable to our London agents, who reaped the benefit in their biennial bills of costs. The country solicitor had to wait a long time for taxation and payment of his costs, and the result rarely recompensed him for the labour, advanced which he had to time, and capital bestow and expend. I remember a suit for an account in which I was concerned for a trustee ; we had to file accounts extending over about ten years relating to house property-the subject of the suit. There were over 800 vouchers, all of which had to be made exhibits to affidavits, and the title of the suit set out on each. The majority of us are old enough to remember the old proceedings in an action of law. The declarations, pleas, rejoinders, surrejoinders, demurrers, rebutters, and surrebutters, and other ingenious devices of pleaders up to the joinder of issue and notice of trial, even then there might be a plea of puis darrien continuance. I remember a curious instance of the effect of the last plea. It was in an action by a wine merchant against the committee of a club for wine supplied to the club. It was necessary that the wine merchant should be able to prove the order for the goods, and for this purpose he proposed to call the member of the club who gave the order; at that time it was not competent for a defendant to be called as a witness, and the objection was taken. The plaintiff's solicitor hurriedly drew up a release of the claim from the plaintiff to the member which was handed up to the judge-I believe it was Lord Denman. Sir Frederick Thesiger, who was counsel for the defendants, asked to see the release, and at once admitted its validity, but

[ocr errors]

he immediately claimed to put on the record a plea of puis darrien continuance, "that a release of one joint contractor was a release of the others," and, amid the laughter of the court, the plaintiff was nonsuited. I now turn to the prospects before us in the future. Although we have been deprived by recent legislation of a large amount of business which formerly was a source of much work and profit, I cannot see any cause of apprehension that we shall be left with the "unemployed." The solicitor must still be the adviser and guide in the tangled affairs of human life, so far as property and the endless arrangements between man and man are concerned. The confidence which is reposed in him will depend on the character he has earned by his intelligence and the reputation he has made by worthy and honourable practice. We are shocked occasionally at the announcement in the papers of some great fraud committed by a solicitor, but having regard to the number of solicitors, the enormous interests which are intrusted to them, and the many temptations offered for dishonest and dishonourable practices, we may congratulate ourselves that defalcations and frauds are not more common among us. In this age of "higher education," the training of law students and the standard of the preliminary examination have received much attention both of the Incorporated Law Society and of the provincial societies. It has been suggested that the preliminary examination should be associated to the Matriculation Examination of the London University, which extends to subjects which do not necessarily form the subject of a liberal education, such, for example, as chemistry and natural philosophy, mechanics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, pneumatics, optics, and heat" (I quote from the address of the President of the Incorporated Law Society at York). It would, perhaps, be hardly fair to require a standard of proficiency in all these subjects, but if, with school boards and the "higher education" the general public are to be educated to such a standard, the profession to which we belong should keep pace with the times and be fomething more than mere lawyers if their social influence is to be maintained. Students intended for the legal profession have in the Welsh University at our doors the opportunity of acquiring a high standard of knowledge, and it might be arranged that the testamur of this and other local seats of learning should have the same force as that of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or London. I have said that we should be something more than mere lawyers. The nature of our professional occupations is such that we require other intellectual pursuits to freshen our minds after the dull and trying work we have to perform. I was much struck with a remark which the late Judge Falconer made to me. We were talking about the absorbing pursuits of the legal profession. He said, "We live in a world teeming with innumerable objects of admiration and interest, and millions of people are born into it, and die out of it, without having the least idea of the beautiful and interesting works of nature by which they are surrounded," We may all find in literary and scientific pursuits, however humble, that healthy recreation which is absolutely necessary as a relief from office work. I am quite sure the outside world does not fully appreciate the anxious, trying nature of a solicitor's daily work or the weight of the responsibility which is thrown upon him. It has often been a matter of surprise to me that with the mental strain of attention to the many affairs in which we are engaged, and the hurry and dispatch in which some of them have to be conducted, often amid constant interruptions, we do not make more blunders. If I find in the course of my practice such a thing happen I have always tried to help a professional brother to set right any mistake he may have made, and expect the same consideration myself. A word now with reference to recent legislation. The year 1886 produced few important Acts of Parliament. The country was engrossed in the political changes which were taking place, and the Legislature had little time to devote to amendments in the law. The Statute Book for last year contains, however, two Acts which should not be passed over in silence-viz., the Act to amend the Law relating to the Guardianship and Custody of Infants, and the Act relating to the maintenance of married women who have been deserted by their husbands. The last Act relieves a married woman in the lower grades of life from the humiliation of becoming chargeable to the parish before her husband could be made liable to contribute to her support. She had, in fact, to submit to be pauperized to obtain from him the necessaries of life. In the last session of Parliament four important Acts were introduced, but did not pass into the Statute Book. They may, however, be re-introduced in the next session, and it is right that attention should be called to them. They were a Bill to abolish the Landlord's right of Distress for Rent on Agricultural Hoidings"; "The County Courts Consolidation Acts' "The Compulsory Compensation of Land Bill"; and "The Barristers' Fee Bill, 1886"; all these Acts received the consideration of our committee. It is probable also that the question of Enfranchisement of Leaseholds may be raised in the next session. It seems to be the intention of the Government in the next session of Parliament to introduce the long-projected Local Government Bill, and, as far as we are able to ascertain, it will be a measure which will transfer to local boards a more general and complete system of local government than anything which has previously existed. It appears to be a main feature in the Bill that those who administer local affairs should represent in the fullest and most complete sense of the word all those classes and all those interests on whose behalf they would be called upon to legislate, and in connection with which they would hold such great responsibilities. As far as can be anticipated, the Bill is intended to vest in local boards, elected by the ratepayers, and those classes for whom they will have to legislate, such of the county business as has hitherto been conducted at quarter sessions, and will probably include the management of all fiscal arrange ments and conduct of affairs in connection with the guardianship of the poor, police, public roads, and public property, national education, and, indeed, all county government, including probably the granting of licences for the sale of fermented and spirituous liquors. I need not say

[ocr errors]

In the

that such a measure will be of deep interest to our profession, and should be jealously watched as it passes through its different stages. We have heard a great deal lately about the "cheapening of the cost, and the increasing of facilities for the transfer of land," and we are told that it is the intention of Lord Halsbury to introduce next session a measure which is to attain this object. It seems probable that either a registra tion of assurances or a registration of titles will be proposed. If the latter, it will be a fortunate event for this generation of our profession. The cost of investigation of titles previous to registration will be necessarily great, and if this kind of registration is compulsory, it will keep us in work for some years to come. If the registration is to be of assurances, it will merely add to the cost of conveyancing without affording further security of title. I think the experience of all of us is that the owners of property, either lands or houses, derive a certain pride and satisfaction in having their deeds in their own custody. They are available for deposit with their bankers, or others, for temporary accommodation, and the strong rooms of the banks are evidence of how largely the security of deposit of deeds is given and accepted for advances in many a commercial transaction, which the borrower would shrink from if the transaction was to be made known by public registration. A word as to the Chancery Division of the High Court. In the speech which ViceChancellor Bacon delivered, when that remarkable scene was witnessed in his court on his retirement, he referred to the improvements which had taken place in his time. He is reported to have said: "I have seen many changes, all of which have been suggested and perfected by the great lawyers to whom I allude, and all of which changes have had the effect of simplifying and perfecting the administration of the law, to the great advantage of our ever-increasing community, to the protection of civil rights, to the encouragement of arts and commerce, and to the general prosperity of the realm." There was, however, no trace in his speech that his beneficent work was finished. There is one reform in the practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court which I should to see carried out. In my judgment it would greatly lessen the time and expense wasted in the present system of "taking accounts," if, after "order made," the papers in the action were remitted to an experienced local solicitor (unconnected with the parties), who could examine the vouchers, hear the evidence of the litigants and their witnesses, and report the result to the court. In this way the repeated adjournments before chief clerks would be avoided, and accounts which now take months to settle could be disposed of in a day or two. In conveyancing, we must all rejoice in the sensible diminution in the length of documents which came into force with the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act. No one but the law stationers benefited by the tedious reiteration of the old deeds, except that it was the custom to charge by the folio. A recent decision of Mr. Justice Kay has caused much consternation among a class of men who have lately been dealt with rather harshly by the courts-I mean trustees. case of Fry v. Tapson it was decided that a trustee was not justified in lending trust funds on mortgage of property for more than half its value. The responsibility of trustees arising out of this case has engaged the attention of several local law societies, and of the Incorporated Law Society; and it has been urged that a further Act should be passed for the relief of trustees. The law officers of the Crown are said to be opposed to any such relief, and their opposition is said to arise from this—that the Government would like to see trust funds invested in Consols. I do not know how this may be, but it is hard on the cestui que trust with whom it is an object to get as much income from investments as is compatible with safety. This brings me to another and very important matter to all of us, In this rapidly increasing town there is some doubt if the large number of houses lately built, and now in course of erection, will not prove more than sufficient for the population. In this case houses will be tenantless, or so reduced in value that they are no longer safe securities for the twothirds of their value which we are asked to advance on them. It is in my recollection that more than once such a calamity has happened to Cardiff, and on one of those occasions I know that small houses, now valued at £130 to £150 each, have been disposed of by despairing mortgagees, who were not content to wait for better times, for one-third of that amount. Before I conclude this address it may not be out of place that I should refer to a loss we, as well as the whole county, sustained in the past year in the death of Mr. Robert Oliver Jones. We, who were brought into contact with him in our professional duties, know how ably and impartially he administered justice, both in the police court and at quarter sessions. I have often myself in matters in which I have been engaged before him at first felt disappointed at his decisions, but, on after reflection, I have been convinced that he was right. As a friend, we have many of us had the opportunity of knowing the kindness of heart with which he was ready to advise us, and the sincere interest he took in our welfare. It will not be easy to find his equal in the performance of the many public duties which he voluntarily took upon himself in this county. As a concluding remark in this address, I hope you will pardon me if I point out that, in our mutual relations as members of an honourable profession, we owe to one another all respect and consideration It may be that in the zeal and interest we take in the affairs of our clients we are occasionally led to treat each other with "scant courtesy," but experience has taught me that we do not consult the interests of our clients or our own comfort in behaving with rudeness or want of consideration towards a professional brother. The worry and responsibility of business during a hard day's work may well try any man's temper, and allowance should be made for occasional irritability, but we owe it to ourselves to be something more than "Gentlemen by Act of Parliament." Permit me to add to this address that it was not without feelings of distrust of my ability to discharge the duty which is expected of me that I approached the task of addressing you as your president, and I ask your indulgence if the remarks I have made have not been equal to the occasion. I take the opportunity of expressing my sense of the honour which your committee conferred on me

when they elected me as your first president, an honour which I owe more to the doubtful advantage of seniority than to any merit of my

own.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee:Members.-The society consists now of ninety enrolled members, all of whom are practising in Cardiff and its immediate neighbourhood; but it cannot be too widely known that all solicitors are eligible as members who appear in the Law List for this town and within a radius of twelve miles from the borough. Your committe desire to impress on the members generally that the society's real power for good lies in its numerical strength, and the efforts which it makes to carry out in their integrity, the objects for which the society was formed. Matters before the committee.-Your committe have had before them the following Bills-viz. :-"A Bill to abolish the landlord's right of distress for rent of agricultural holdings in England, and his right of priority over other creditors of the tenant in England"; "The County Courts Consolidation Bill"; "The Compulsory Purchase of Land Compensation Bill"; and "The Barristers' Fees Bill, 1886." All these Bills have had due consideration at the hands of your committee, but in consequence of the broken nature of the last session of Parliament none of these Bills were proceeded with. It is, however, believed these and other kindred subjects will be dealt with by Parliament in the coming session, when such matters will have the careful consideration of your committee. Various other matters have been submitted to your committee by the Incorporat ed Law Society of the United Kingdom, and have had their due attention. In particular your committee were asked to assist that society with sugge stions as to a digest of cases under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, and your committee take this opportunity of inviting members generally to submit to them any points under that Act to which attention should be called.

LEEDS INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

·

The following are extracts from the report of the committee presented to the annual general meeting held on the 15th ult. :Members.-The present number of members of the society is ninety, and of the subscribers to the library, eight. It is satisfactory to note that the number of members of the society increases, though not in proportion to the solicitors practising in the town. Legislation. The committee have no special subject of general professional interest to report upon. The year has been singularly barren in legislation, and the General Election occupied so large amount of time and attention in the middle of the year, that most legislative projects have been necessarily postponed. We are promised a new Bill for registration of titles for the coming session, which will require and receive the careful attention of your committee. One or two statutes may be noticed :The Marriages Validity Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 3), removes doubts which have been entertained as to the validity of certain marriages solemnized in England, one of the parties to such marriage being resident in Scotland. The Marriage Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 14), legalizes marriages solemnized after the passing of the Act-the 10th of May, 1886between eight in the forenoon and three in the afternoon. The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 27). This Act gives the guardianship of infants, whose fathers may have died after the 25th of June, 1886, to the mothers, and enables the mother to appoint guardians by deed or will. The Act makes several other a. erations in the law of guardianship which cannot be shortly summarized, but the following are to be specially noted as of importance to country practitioners:-" In the event of guardians being unable to agree upon a question affecting the welfare of an infant, they may apply to the court for its direction," section 3 (3). "The court may, on the application of the mother, make an order for custody of the infant," section 5. In England "the court" means the High Court of Justice" or "the county court of the district in which the respondent or respondents, or any of them, reside."

66

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on Wednesday, the 19th inst., Mr. Sidney Smith in the chair. The other directors present were:-) -Messrs. W. Beriah Brook, Edwin Hedger, J. H. Kays, R. Pennington, Henry Roscoe, H. S. Styan, W. Melmoth Walters, F. T. Woolbert, and J. T. Scott, secretary. A sum of £275 was distributed in grants of relief, twenty-four new members were admitted to the association, and other general business was transacted. It was also announced at the meeting that Mr. Ebenezer John Bristow had accepted the invitation of the directors to preside at the anniversary festival of the association this year.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION.
HILARY EXAMINATION, 1887.

GENERAL EXAMINATION OF STUDENTS OF THE INNS OF COURT, held at
Lincoln's-inn-hall, December 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, and 31, 1886.
The Council of Legal Education have awarded to William Harrison
Moore and John Mahan Gover, Esqs., of the Middle Temple, studentships
in jurisprudence and Roman law of one hundered guineas, to continue

for a period of two years; and to Arthur Llewelyn Davies, Esq., of the Inner Temple, a studentship in jurisprudence and Roman law of one hundred guineas, for one year.

The council have also awarded to the following students certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination :-William Lawrence Bradbury, Evan Edwin Brook, Charles Ernest Chambers, Ramdas Chubildas, George Benson Clough, John Ratcliffe Cousins, Felix Reginald Dias, John Hugh Armstrong Elliot, Frederick Feeney, Henry Newland Field, Hugh Fort, Walter Grindley, William Tudor Howell, Herbert Levi Jacobs, Reginald Heber Jones, Andrew Cassels Kay, Edmund Lyon Keates, Henry Joseph Knowles, William Andrew Lang, Gerald Champion Lewis, Mac Munn, Thomas Miller Maguire, Percy Copeland Morris, Reginald William Hessel Linsley, Frederick Lodge, Edward Alexander Sinclair James Neville Neville, Joseph Gerald Pease, James Aiken Pixley, Frank Rhodes, James Roberts, Arthur Godfrey Roby, David Emile Seligman, Joseph Shaw, William Staunton Sherrington, Charles Edward Seth Smith, John Frederic Matthias Harris Stone, William Paul Studholme, Samuel Wadsworth, John Harrison Wagner, Herbert George Ward, Pridham Henry Wippell, Robert Henry Walter Woodward, and John Arthur Penfold Wyatt, of the Inner Temple; John Scott Abernethy, Ralph Sillery Benson, Harold Catmur Brushfield, James Curran, Patrick Dargan, Hubert Sydney George Barrow Doo, Robert James Drake, Henry Savage Sharp Elwin, Edward Claudius Scotney George, Arthur Volkner Grace, Clarence Adolphus Hamlyn, Heber Leonidas Hart, Duncan Macrae Hutson, Alfred Kalisch, Krishna Singh Kapur, John Knowles, Moung Kyaw, Roshan Lal, Henry Montague Laurie, Edmund Prior Leresche, Charles Major, Sylvain Mayer, Robert Ernest Moore, James Cecil Walter Pereira, Robert Garraway Rice, Matthew Adkins Rundell, Joseph Eugene Serret, James Todd, William Wallace, John Wilkins, John Bruce Williamson, and William Basil Worsfold, of the Middle Temple; Robert Chignell, Geoffrey Drage, Percy Holland, Henry Stratton Izard, Arthur Jackson, George Herbert Peake, William Awdry Peck, Joseph Reade, John Sarbah, Alexander Faulkner Shand, John Southall, Edward Talbot, Arthur Theodore Thring, and Edward Granville Waddilove, of Lincoln'sinn; and John Henry Anderson, of Gray's-inn, Esqs.

The following students passed a satisfactory examination in Roman law:-Alfred Williams Adams-Williams, William Denby Arton, David Hugh Watson Askew, Thomas William Barton, Alfred Sidney Newnham Davis, Philip Evered, George Arthur Greene, Hugh McLeod Innes, Louis William Jelf-Petit, Reginald McKenna, Walter Halliday Moresby, John James O'Flynn, Howell John James Price, Joseph Child Priestley, Ernest Barkley Raikes, David Watson Rannie, Joseph Sladen, Hugh Richard Soulsby, Charles Frederick Denne Sperling, and Francis William Sutton Stewart, of the Inner Temple; Ernest Frederick Abbott, Nowrojee Dadabhoy Allbless, Nogendro Nath Banerjee, Francis Thomas Bradshaw, Patrick George Carvill, Chan Toon, Harry Broughton Edge, Richard Cunningham Ewing, James Blades Gooding, Robert Donald Grant, Thomas Wright Haddon, Herbert Welch Halton, Henry Francis Herford, Charles Alexander Howell, Angus Scott Lewis, Henry Thomas Lethbridge Marshall, David Trevor Roberts, Herman Robinson, John Robert Roxburgh, Epaminondas Emile Sauzier, Pandit Srilal, George Allen Upward, and Hiram Parkes Wilkinson, of the Middle Temple; Herman Kossuth Burney, Allan Napier Macnab Daly, Harrop William Abel Harrison, St. George Haysmither Jackson, Richard Horatio Couch Kent, and William Harcourt Moira Maclean, of Lincoln's-inn; and James William Ross Brown, John Kyrle Frederick Cleave, and Samuel Joseph Goldston, of Gray's-inn, Esqs.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.

At the meeting of the society, held at the Law Institution, Chancerylane, on Tuesday, the 18th inst., Mr. J. Dawson Crawford in the chair, the motion upon the agenda paper for discussion was "That the case of Montague v. Sandwich (reported 32 Ch. D. 525) was wrongly decided." The debate was opened in the affirmative by Mr. Thomas Douglas, who was followed by Messrs. W. Mackenzie, H. Mossop, and Adam Fox, and opposed by Messrs. W. Y. Woolcombe, G. Riddell, Wilmot E. Elmslie T. H. Bower, R. Hole, and Walter Aysom. After Mr. Douglas had motion to the society, which decided in favour of the affirmative by a replied, the chairman shortly summed up the arguments, and put the majority of one vote. There were twenty-eight gentlemen present, and the meeting terminated at 9.20.

LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION,

The annual meeting of this association took place last week. Mr. T. Bellringer, the retiring president, occupied the chair, and there was a large attendance. The committee in their annual report, read by Mr. A. G. Inglis, the honorary secretary, shewed that during the past year 51 new members had been elected, eight members had resigned, and eight had been struck off the rolls. The number of members had increased from 364 at the close of the last year to 396 at the present time. Of this number, 32 were barristers-at-law, 193 solicitors, five bar students, and 166 articled clerks. Since the previous report 22 members had passed the final examination, and 36 had passed the intermediate examination. The balance sheet shewed that the financial position of the association continued to be satisfactory, there being a balance of £31 12s. 4d. Mr. J. C. Bromfield proposed, and Mr. C. B. Wilson seconded, a motion for the election of Mr. J. H. Kenion to the position of president for the ensuing year, which was unanimously agreed to. Mr. J. H. Kenion then took the chair vacated by Mr. Bellringer. Mr. Kenion said that he attributed the honour of his election rather to the circumstance of his being the president of the Liverpool Law Society than to his individual merit. ("No, no.”

It was a matter of sincere congratulation to observe how large a hold the society had obtained upon the articled clerks of this great city. It was equally satisfactory to notice that the solicitors had given it large and substantial support, though he should have been pleased could he have been in the position of stating that they had manifested a greater personal interest by their presence at the meetings. It was only by constant practice that the art of readily conveying one's thoughts and ideas by speech could be acquired, and he urged upon any member of the association who found himself unable to give proper effect to his arguments to attend the law debates. The law student almost more than anyone else had need to perfect himself in every conceivable way, for competition in the race of life had nowhere become greater or more keen than in their profession. Speaking after an experience of more than 23 years, he unhesitatingly said that the prospects of a solicitor nowadays were not of that enviable character usually attributed to them by outsiders. The career of every one who might be classed as a successful solicitor was as a rule slow; years of patient labour, and every effort had to be made before he attained to a practice that was more to him than an honourable and respectable livelihood. The profession was still a most ennobling one. It called forth all the higher attributes of man. No class in society was more trusted with the weighty affairs and secrets of life, and was more looked up to in all the multitudinous phases of social life. They were the recipients of their clients' greatest confidences. Their clients' very being was often placed in their keeping. Such conditions necessarily brought with them great and increasing responsibilities. How much, then, did it behove each of his hearers to neglect no opportunity of qualifying himself to perform and discharge those duties and responsibilities in a high and fearless manner? It was important further for the well-being of the profession that, in addition to great legal erudition, they should observe one towards another the strictest integrity and good faith, courtesy and kind consideration. After further reference to their duties and responsibilities, the president said that he had often thought that amidst the press of business he was not fulfiling as he ought to do all the obligations he had entered into with his articled clerks, and he had no doubt that his professional brethren shared in the same opinion. Then if their pupils did not turn out as brilliant as they could wish he honestly confessed that they (the speaker and his professional brethren) were in a measure responsible. The speaker concluded by moving the adoption of the report.

Mr. Alfred Bright seconded, and, after a few words from Mr. Shand, the motion was agreed to.

Mr. H. Todd was elected secretary, and Mr. J. E. B. Bagshaw was elected treasurer. A committee was also appointed, and the proceedings concluded when a vote of thanks had been passed to Mr. Kenion for siding.

BRISTOL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

Registrar for the Whitby District, in succession to his father, the late Mr.
Matthew Gray. Mr. W. S. Gray was admitted a solicitor in 1884.
Mr. CHARLES BAILEY HALLILEY, solicitor (of the firm of Pearse &
Halliley), of Bedford, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer
Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. PHILIP HENRY EDLIN, Q.C., assistant judge of the Middlesex Sessions, has been appointed Deputy-Treasurer of the Middle Temple for the ensuing year.

Mr. GAD WILLIAM MEADOWS, solicitor, of Hastings, has been appointed a Commissioner to Administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. WILLIAM JESSE FREER, solicitor, of Leicester, has been appointed Deputy-Treasurer for Leicestershire in succession to Mr. William Napier Reeve, resigned. Mr. Freer is also deputy-clerk of the peace for Leicestershire. He was admitted a solicitor in 1875.

Mr. FREDERICK NEWTON TWEEDALE (of the firm of Tweedale, Sons, & Lees), of Oldham, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. WILLIAM FOSTER, barrister, has been appointed Attorney-General of the Colony of New South Wales.

Mr. FRANK LOCKWOOD, Q.C., M.P., has been elected a Bencher of Lincoln's-inn.

Mr. THOMAS WATKIN WAYNE MORGAN, solicitor (of the firm of Morgan & been appointed a Male), of Town Hall-chambers, Pontypridd, has Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. Morgan was admitted a solicitor in January, 1878.

Mr. W. STORER COLLINS, solicitor (of the firm of James Collins & Son), of Bath, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. W. S. Collins was admitted a solicitor in Hilary Sittings, 1880.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

WILLIAM LAMBERT and HERBERT EDWARD GRIFFITH, solicitors (Lambert & Griffith), 17, Bedford-row. Jan. 8. [Gazette, Jan. 18.

GENERAL.

At the Dorchester Assizes, on the 18th inst., the foreman of the grand jury (Mr. John Floyer) said that, in accordance with a request made by his lordship in charging them, they had considered the question of the assize pre-arrangements. The grand jury had no wish to make any presentment on the existing system of holding four assizes a year; but they desired to say that when the assizes were not held at Dorchester they considered Winchester was preferable to Bristol or any other town in which to hold them. They wished also to point out, however, that at the last assizes, in November, at Winchester, eleven prisoners were sent for trial from Dorsetshire at an expense of upwards of £500, in consequence of the witnesses having been all summoned for the first day of the assizes and kept there in some instances till the end of the assizes. They suggested that arrangements should be made that the witnesses should not be summoned for the first day in future, and, further, that they should not be kept at Winchester during the whole of the assizes. Mr. Justice Mathew said that the suggestions of the grand jury should be communicated to the judges. He pointed out that the witnesses must, however, go to Winchester on the first day of the assizes, as their presence was absolutely necessary to go before the grand jury; but he did not see why it should not be arranged to take the cases from outlying counties first. With reference to the question of expeuse he feared it was inevitable, and the only consolation he could give them was that it was charged to the Consolidated Fund and did not fall on the county.

The sixth meeting of the session was held on the 4th of January, Mr. W. Benson, solicitor, in the chair. The subject for debate was 66 That the case of Furber v. Cobb (17 Q. B. D. 459) should be reversed on appeal." The affirmative was opened by Mr. E. J. Pillers, the negative by Mr. David Johnston, seconded respectively by Mr. J. L. V. S. Williams and Mr. W. R. Parry. The openers replied, and the chairman summed up, and, the question being voted upon, was decided in the negative by a majority of one.

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

Mr. WILLIAM ROBERT GIBLIN, puisne judge of the Supreme Court of the Colony of Tasmania, died about a fortnight ago. Mr. Justice Giblin was born in 1840. He was called to the bar in Tasmania in 1864. He was for sixteen years a member of the Colonial House of Assembly. He was Attorney-General of Tasmania from 1870 till 1872, and from 1873 till 1876. He afterwards became colonial treasurer, and he was prime minister of the colony from 1878 till 1885, when he became a puisne judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Giblin had recently acted as governor of the colony. Mr. WATSON ROBERT JONES, Solicitor (of the firm of Bridgman, Weaver, & Jones), of Chester, died on the 8th inst. Mr. Jones was admitted a solicitor in 1865, and he had since practised at Chester as a member of the firm of Bridgman, Weaver, & Jones. He was at the time of his death associated in partnership with Mr. Wilfred Marratt Weaver. Mr. Jones's death has caused much sorrow at Chester, and his funeral, which took place at the Chester Cemetery on the 13th inst., was attended by many professional and other friends. He leaves a widow and five children.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. RISDON DARRACOTT SHARP, solicitor, of Christchurch and Bournemouth, has been elected Town Clerk of the Borough of Christchurch. Mr. Sharp was admitted a solicitor in 1850.

Mr. HENRY SALTER DICKINSON, solicitor, of Poole, has been elected Town Clerk of that Borough on the resignation of his father, Hr. Henry William Dickinson. Mr. H. S. Dickinson was admitted a solicitor in 1878. He is registrar (jointly with his father) of the Poole County Court. Mr. WILLIAM SEATON GRAY, solicitor, of Whitby, has been appointed Clerk to the Whitby Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, School Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority and Superintendent

[blocks in formation]

WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house have the Sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an expert, from The Sanitary Engineering & Ventilation Co., 115, Victoria-st., Westmirster (Estab. 1875), who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.-[ADVT.] FURNISH ON NORMAN & STACEY'S SYSTEM; No Deposit; 1, 2, or 3 years credit; 60 wholesale firms. Offices, 79, Queen Victoria-st., E.C. Branches at 121, Pall Mall, S. W., & 9. Liverpool-st., E.C. Goods delivered free.—¡ADVT.

« PreviousContinue »