« PreviousContinue »
KAY, JOHN, Hunslet, nr Leeds, Model Maker. Leeds. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 20 KILLINGBECK, WILLIAM. New Malton, Yorke, Innkeeper. Scarborough. Pet Oct 14. Ord Oct 18
LARGE, CHARLRs WILLIAM, Cornwall rd, Netting hill, Dentist. High CourtPet Sept 21. Ord Oct 18
PRINCE, GEORGE. Leeds, Whitesmith. Leeds. Pet Oct 13. Ord Oct 20
RORINsON. J OIIN COLWELL, and EDWARD JAM1-ts BAYLY, Liverpool, Bicycle Manufacturers. Liverpool. Pet Sept 25. Ord Oct 20
Row!-:LL, J ANB. Middle Brunton Farm, Northumberland, Widow. Newcastle on Tyne. Pet Sept 10. Ord Oct 18
SNOWRALL, JOHN, Pudsey, Yorks, Tailor. Bradford. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 13 TAYLOR. SAMUEL, Burnley. Lancashire, Auctioneer. Burnley. Pet Oct 16. Ord
Oct 19 TliiSTLl-ZTIIWAITE. YVILLIAM. New Brighton, Cheshire, Cigar Merchant. Birkenhead. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 20
Towsns. W ILLIAM, Cumberland. Farmer. Carlisle. Pet Oct 13. Ord Oct 18
WA'1'rs. JAMES. and JOSEPH WArrs. Drewsteignton, Devon, Farmers. East Stonehouse. Pet Oct 6. Ord Oct 18 .
London Gautte.—TL'1-;sDAY, Ocr. 28. RECEIVING ORDERS. BICKMOBE STRPHRN JOHN, Biniham, Nottinghamshire, Builder. Nottingham. Pet Oct 21. Ord Oct 21. xam Nov 16
BIROHALL, JOHN. Stapeley. nr Nantwich, Farmer. Nantwich and Crewe. Pct Oct 23. Ord Oct 23. Exam Nov 10 at 11 at Nantwich
BLACKBURN. JOHN, Hunslet, Leeds, Miner. Leeds. Pet Oct 21. Ord Oct 21. Exam Nov 16 at 11
BRAOO, THOMAs WILLIAM, Stoke §pon Trent, Builder. Stoke upon Trent. Pet Oct 22. Ord Oct 22. Exam Ov 16
Bmsrow, JOHN, Withington, Lancashire, Joiner. Stockport. Pet Oct 6. Ord Oct 21. Exam Nov 11 at 11.30
BROM1-‘IELD. CHARLRs, Exeter, Manufacturing Stationcr. Exeter. Pet Oct 23. Ord Oct 23. Exam Nov 18 at 11
BROWN. Gnonos. Newport. Mon, Carpenter. Newport, Mon. Pet Oct 21. Ord Oct 23. Exam Nov -1 at 11.30
CRANE. WILLIAM, Broadway, Westminster, Licensed Victualler. High Court. Pet Oct 21. Ord Oct 21. Exam Nov 24 at 11.30 at 34, Lincoln's inn fields
CRUTCHLEY, HENRY HARDING, Kington, Hereiordshire. Licensed Victualler. Leominster. Pet Oct 22. Ord ct 22. Exam Nov 25
DAvIs EDWIN CHARL1cs, Devonpsrt, General Dealer. East Stonehouse. Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 21. Exam Ov 17 at 11
DAWRI-zs, CHARLES, High st Leamington Priors, Sign Writer. Warwick. Pet Oct 22. Ord Oct 22. Exam Nov 16
FRRRMAN, THOMAS, Smarden, Kent, Farmer. Canterbury. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 21. Exam Nov 5
FUNK. HENRY, Commercial rd, Grocer. High Court. Pet Sept 1. Ord Oct 22. Exam Nov 26 at 12 at 34 Lin in
co ’s inn fields HALLILEY, ROBERT THOMAs, Manchester. Manchester. Pet Oct 6. Ord Oct 21. Exam Nov 15 at 11
HAMMOND, WALTER Scorr, and JOHN EDWARD HAMMOND, Noel st, Soho, Bookbinders. High Court. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 22. Exam Dec 3 at 11.30 at 34. Lincoln's inn fields
The Solicitors’ Journal and Reporter.
LONDON, NOVEMBER 6, I886.
Ma. Jvsrici: Ksr has announced that he will continue the hearing of 3d]0Hl'Ii8(l summonses during next week, in order to reduce the heavy list as far as possible before taking non-witness actions and further considerations.
WE imnsssrsivii that it is in contemplation to issue a direction that an order giving leave to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction at 8 parilcular R1909, may also allow the writ to be served within a p)r_escribed radius of _the place named. It was recommended in the tblfection of the Senior Registrar (30 Souciroas’ J OUHNAL, 658) on .‘ °_s“_bJect of time for entering appearance after service out of the 3““sd‘°l1°11» “ to allow a certain area for service."
Ir use anus ANNOUNCED this week that the special licence n°°eP"-1'? 5° elfflblc =1 Queen’s Counsel to appear in court to defend I} prisoner, which has hitherto been signed by the Queen personally, 1!, ll fllfllrc. to be granted by the Home Secretary, and we PTeIHme_(although this is not stated), that a similar course is to be adopted in the case of all licences for employment of a Q,ueen’s
°1111sel_ in a cause against the Crown. As the licence, at all 19°35» "1 the case of criminal trials, is never refused, the only phyect i-e_tsming the formality must be the fees connected with °bz£P_P l08tl0IJ: At the close of the last century the expense of ti ,l1l}!31]3 the licence is stated to have been about £9 (see Chris
antln Millstone, 12th ed., p.27, note (2) ); perhaps some reader W1 us what it costs at the present day. '
includes applications for discovery and interrogatories, &o., but without asking for liberty to apply, requires a 10s. foe, as coming under order 30, and not under ord. 54, r. 9. The practice hitherto prevalent in the Queen’s Bench Chambers of getting an “omnibus” summons issued for 35., by omitting the “liberty to apply,” will, therefore, now cease, and every summons including seveial matters will be charged 10s., and require a four-day return.
Tun PRESENT SITTIXGS have not commenced auspiciously for bill of sale holders. Last week two important decisions were given by the Court of Appeal invalidating bills of sale on the usual ground that they were not “in accordance with the form.” In one of them (Hughes v. Little, ante, p. 9) the bill of sale was given by way of indemnity to the grantee on his becoming surety for the grantor, and the decision amounts to this, that inasmuch as in such transactions it is obviously impossible to specify the exact sum which the grantor will become liable to pay to the grantee on the indemnity, or the exact time of payment, the transaction cannot be brought within the four corners of the form, and so is void as a bill of sale. In the other case £Blai'ber_q v. Bee/cett, mite, p. 9) the bill of sale contained a clause t at, upon any sale by the grantee, the purchaser should not be bound to inquire whether there had been any default by the grantor. This clause was held to render the bill of sale void, as not being a clause either for the “ maintenance " or “ defeasance" of the security. This, we believe, is not an uncommon provision in bills of sale. The practical effect oi the numerous decisions invalidating bills of sale has, itis understood, been to raise enormously the rate of interest charged on such securities.
SPEAKING of Lord Mosnswsn. last week, we mentioned that his name did not appear in Pui.i.nm’s list of serjeants, though we believed that he was styled a serjeant in the Gazette. The facts appear to be these: The Gazelle of November 7th, 1871, contains the following entry :—“ Crown Oflice, November 7th, 1871. Her Majesty has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, to constitute and appoint Sir ROBERT Poassrr COLLIER, Knight, Serjeant-at-Law, one of the Justices of the Court 0! Common Pleas.” So far this appears regular enough. But on turning to a Gazette of later date—-that of December lst, 1871we find this entry: “Crown Oflice, November 80th, 1871. Her Majesty has been pleased, by a writ under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, to call WILLIADI Roiasnr Gaovs, Esq., one of Her Majesty’! Counel learned in the law, to the stats and degree oi a Serjeant-at-Law. Her Majesty has also been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, to constitute and appoint Wn.Li.ui Roiisar Gaovr, Serjeant-at-Law, one of the Justices of Her l\[ajesty’s Court of Common Pleas." It is certain that the late Lord Moxiiswisu. was never admitted a member of Serjeant’sinn, nor received any share of tho purchase-money when that inn was sold and the profits divided. What was the reason of Mr. Justice Gnovi:’s call as serjeant being gazetted, while that of Mr. Justice Coiunii was not, while at the same time Mr. Justice Conmsn was styled a serjoant? The only reason that suggests itself is that a writ calling Sir R. Coi.I.inii to the degree of serjeant was made out, but was never publicly executed in open court (with the quaint ceremony which was last gone through when the present Lord Chief Justice of England received his appointment), so that, as the philosopher of Greek comedy was “ within and yet not within" when his clients called upon him, so the late Lord MONKSWELL was and was not a serjeant, when the problem was how to qualify for a judge by having been serjeant, and yet by not having been serjeant avoid the payment of some £400 in fees to
and is silent as to inc conduct of such persons elsewhere. And we have searched in vain for any reported case which_has gone the length of laying down as illegal the mere preaching, unaccompanied by the celebration of other ordinances, by a clergyman in a Dissenting chapel. The canon most in point is the 71st, whereby it is provided that “no minister shall preach or administer the Holy Communion in any private house ” ; and the case most in point appears to be fl’/relies v. Keith ('2 Atk. 498), decided in 1742, in which Lord HARD\\'ICKE said that “ there is no pretence for preaching without licence from the bishop,” and that, though it is not necessary “for a minister to have licence from the bishop for each particular case, the bishop may suspend him wholly where he is irregular." But a place like the City Temple could hardly be deemed a “private house” within the meaning of the 71st canon; and Trebec v. Keith, like J1o_yse_1/ v. Hillcoat (‘Z Hagg. 30) and other cases in relation to unconsecrated proprietary chapels, was a case Where full services had evidently been conducted. What Mr. HAWEI8 proposed would, no doubt, have contravened the spirit of the ecclesiastical law, which (see Act of Uniformity, 14 Car. 2, c. 4, s. 18, and Act of Uniformity Amendment Act, 1872, 35 & 36 Vict. c. 35, s. 6) forbids preaching in a church without specific antecedent forms of worship; but it is at least questionable whether it would have contravened the letter of any canon or statute.
Loan J USTICE Far took occasion, on the hearing of an appeal in Ebrard v. Gaasier on the 29th ult., in the Court of Appeal, to comment on the fact that it frequently happened in the Chancery Division that affidavits are entered in orders ns having been read which, in fact, were never read to the court, and to express his dissent from this practice. At the same time, he made no suggestion for putting a stop to the practice, probably because his remarks were only introduced as an illustration, and did not apply to the matter immediately before the court. Should the learned judge attempt to introduce any alteration, he must, at the same time that he excludes from j ndgmcnts and orders in Chancery the entering of aflidavits as read which are not in fact read, provide that the cost of aflidavits b0n(ifirlo made for the purposes of the case shall not be forfeited. In taxing costs the taxing master considers it his duty to reject charges for aflidavits not entered in the order as read, although he will take into consideration and allow for witnesses summoned but not called on, and whose names are not stated in the order among those giving oral evidence. It is submitted that the practice of the taxing masters is just, and that the practice of the registrars of entering as read evidence on which, though not in fact read, tho order of the court is really based, cannot be altered without effecting injustice. The judges of the Chancery Division are often content to take from the statement of counsel the general effect of the evidence, and it frequently occurs that the only reference made in court to an affidavit is the statement of counsel that he has evidence of what he is saying. Again, when the parties have, by means of affidavits on both sides, arrived at a basis of settlement and come to the court to sanction a judgment by consent, no evidence is in fact read. \Vonld it be right in either of_ these cases to deprive the solicitor of his costs of procuring this evidence, or, it may be, to throw on his client costs which in fact ought to be paid by the opponent? Lord Justice Far, in his strictures on the practice, loses sight of the fact that the taxing masters, while refusing to allow for aflldavits which are not entered in the judgment or order as read, do not, as a matter of course, allow the whole cost of every affidavit which is read. Those who would uphold the view propounded by the learned judge would argue that to enter affidavits as rend which are not read is to introduce a fiction. But is it a fiction? The court has made the order upon the evidence, though the physical reading of the evidence did not in fact take place, and in drawing up the order the registrar reads the evidence in order to see th t 't
due dehberation and with regard to the surrounding fdctt: e a er
Tiu; JJECI-'U)N of the Queen’s Bench Division_on the application for a mandamus against Mr. Bl-IXXETT, the police magistrate, to state a case has, we suppose, practically settled theqiiestion when a dog is “not under the control of any person ” within the words of the Dogs Act, 1871. The rule laid down by the'court appears to have been that the question whether a dog is or is not “ under control” is one of fact only to be decided by the magistrate, and according to Lord COLERIDGE, the fact that :i dog is neither mnzzled nor led is, “in the absence of very positive evidence to the contrary,” sufiicient to prove that it is not _“ under control.” The other judges appear to have concurred in this view, but Mr. Justice STEPHEN apparently thought that the fact that a dog is neither muzzled nor led is conclusive proof that it is not “ under control," inasmuch as dogs are “ insensible to moral influences” ; which remark appears, at all events, to be conclusive proof that Mr. Justice STEPHEN has never kept a dog. The proper course for the future will be for the local authority making an order under the Dogs Act to state explicitly in such order that_ all dogs in public places must be either muzzle-d or led, so as to give fair warning to the public, instead of following the misleading course hitherto adopted of merely stating that no dogs not under the control of any person shall be suffered to be in any public place.
A STRONG APPEAL has been made in the Times to rescue Stapleinn from the hands of the destroyer. Following the example of the Serjeants, the Principal and Ancients of this Inn of Chancery are stated, some time ago, to have sold or shared among them the plate, fixtures, and movable ornaments, and to have sold the land and buildings to Messrs. TROLLOPE for over £80,000. Messrs. TiioLLori: have resold a part to the Board of Works for an extension of the Patent Oflice, and will ofier the remainder for sale by auction in the course of the present month. The appeal seems to be directed either towards stopping this “trafficking in gzmi-corporate property,’ ’ on the wrong assumption that Messrs. TROLLOPE are, in fact, only “feeling the pulse of the public on behalf of the Ancients,” or else towards inducing some public body to purchase the Inn. As regards the latter object, everyone must hope, though no one can expect, that it will be accomplished. But, as regards the prevention of the “trafficking,” the experience of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, who in 1884 took active steps to prevent the sale of Clement’s-inn, is not encouraging. They obtained the opinion of counsel, and communicated it to the Charity Commissioners, who, however, declined to interfere. By the way, what has become of the Bill which was introduced by the Attorney-General in 1885 for
“better securing the property of corporate and guaoi-corporate associations ” ?
_ Timan IS A STORY going the round of the papers about someone in a humble position having lately established a claim to £300,000 in court, and it is added that, after funds have been in court for a certain time without being claimed, they are forfeited to the Crown, and special attention is drawn to the providential fact that the right to the fund in question was established only two days before that time expired. Suitors need not, however, be alarmed lest their property should become forfeited to the Crown. It is indeed the fact that, under certain circumstances, funds in court not claimed are transferred to the Commissioners for the
Act of Parliament, made liable to replace all such funds whenlthe
ownership is provcd—see the Chancery Funds Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 44), s. 14.
The funeral of Mr. Robert Few, the Deputy High Steward of Westminster, took place last week in Esher churchyard, the Dean of Westminster, assisted by the Rev. C. Few oflloiating. The chief mourners were Mr. Hamilton Few, Mr. C. Few, and other members of the family; and immediately behind them followed the High Steward (the Duke of Westminster), and burgesses of \Vestmiiister, Mr. W. J . Farrer, the Revs. F. Candwell, R. Milburn, Blakiston, and S. Warren, the leading gentry and tradesmen of Esher, the staff of his oflice, and many legal friends, as woll as representatives of the various church societies of which he had
been so active a member. The head master and bin-sar of Marlborough College, of the council of which he was a member, were present.