« PreviousContinue »
]an. 29, 1887. THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. f f _ 225% p
\VADDINGTON, GEORGE, Harrogate, out of business. Feb 5 at 12. Ofl Rec, 17
BBENY. CAROLINE. Hailsham. Sussex, Corn Merchant. Jan 26 at 12. Of! Ree, -1, Pavilion bldgs, Brighton
ADJ UDICATIO NS. BOTTOMLEY, JOHN, Bradford, Winder. Bradford. Pet J on 4. Ord Jan 19
Bonngfialgnsmg, Kidderminster, Letter Carrier. Kidderminster. Pet Jan 19.
Anti.Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa oi the Finest Quality with the excess of fat extracted. _ _
The Faculiipmnounce it " the most nutritious, parfectly dlgssti le beverage for llreakfaet, Luncheon, or Hllpper, and invaluable for Inva.lid_s and Children."
Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. _
Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates keeps for yes-rs in all climates, and is four times the strength oi cocoas raicninn yet WIAIIIID with starch, tc., and II nnurr cnnrn than such Mixtures.
Made instaniaiieossly with . “lling water, a teaspoonful
In tins at ls. 6d., 8a., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and
Charities on Special Terms by the Bola Proprietor,
EDE AN D SON,
Law Wigs and Gowns i'or Registrars, Town Clerks.
GDRPOMTIOII ROBES, UNIVERSITY MID MERRY GUWIIS
94, CHANGERY LANE, LONDON.
THE MORTGAGE INSURANCE COR-
Policies are now being issued by t iii Corporation
These Policies will be of especial advantage to Trustees who mag be held responsible for osses consequent upon t sir Investments.
Mortgagors insuring with the Corporation will also be enabled to obtain Advances at the lowest possible rate of interest.
The Corporation also grants Policies to Leaseholders insuring the return oi’ the Amount invested ostrich; expiration oi their leases or at any fixed pe 0 s.
For particulars and conditions of Insurance a 1
to the Secretary. By order, pp y
NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY,
Fira Premiums ... ... ... ... £577,000
Life Premiums ... ... ... ... 191,000
Interest... ... . . ... 132,000
REVERSIONARY and LIFE INTE.
RESTS in LANDED or FUNDED PROPERTY or other Securities and Annuities PURCHASED, or Loans or Annuities thereon granted, by the EQUITABLE RE. VERSIONARY INTEREST SOCIETY (LIMITED) l0 Lancaster-place, Waterloo Bi-id s -’.
ALSO for HIRE ONLY.
COPYING BOOKS. To Her Majesty. the Lord Chancellor. the Whole of i IHOWARITS PATIWI‘-l
l _ English made. i THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK 0l‘T.
Sclioitors’ Account B00"
THE nmouivcsnnrr made by the President of the Incorporated Law Society at the meeting last week, that tho existing regulalations relating to the Preliminary Examination arc to lie repealed, and that now regulations are now before the judges, will occasion very general satisfaction, particularly when coupled with his hint that the new regulations are not in the direction of lowering the -‘tl_111dH1‘d, by which we suppose we must understand that they raise The passage in last years’ report, intimatiug that the council “ saw no reason ” for altering the Preliminary Examination, was a gravc mistake, as wc pointed out at the time, but the council have acted wisely in promptly reconsidering the matter, and we hope that the new regulations will bc found to aflord some real guarantcc of “ a reasonably liberal education.”
ho omrcrioir can be raised to the appointment, at the meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, of a committee to consider and report to the council whether it is or is not ixpedicnt to assimilate the practice as to the conduct of auction sales in England generally to_that which prevails in the North of England, except this, that it is rather late in the day to attempt 0. rcvolution in the London P"1'=t1¢o- _The committee might well have been appointed soon after the issue of the Remuneration Order, when there was no “tiled practice, and we were urging, week after week, the then council to afford some general guidance to bewildered practitioners. But the Order has been in operation now for over four years, and the question referred to the committee for discussion has long been virtually decided. The London solicitors, as a body, have "fused to adopt thc Liverpool practice, and it is, at least, doubtful Wlicther they will be induced to alter a decision, no doubt arrived pt in most cases alter individual consideration of the arguments $5817 urged on both sides at the time of the issue of the Order, by
9 1'?Port of any committee or even the recommendation of the (°‘m°ll- H°Wever, the committee can do no harm by threshing
out the arguments pro and elm once more, and they may possibly make practical suggestions of facilities for carrying out in London the Lancashire practice, and lay a foundation for a recommendation by the council that solicitors in general ought to “ wield the hammer ”— all of which will smooth the way for London practitioners earnestly desirous of engaging in the occupations of bill-posting, advertising in newspapers, “getting a full attendance at the auction-rooms,” &c., as vividly described in Re Sykes, deceased (ante, _p. 185). But we confess we think that the committee might have been more usefully employed in considering the whole subject of the effect of the Remuneration Order, and the recent decisions upon it.
Accoiumw ro a daily paper, an interesting question has arisen at Plumstead with regard to the right of disposal of the remains of a Roman lady who is supposed to have departed this life about s.n. 300. The owner of the land on which the remains, inclosed in a. lead coflln, were recently discovered, perhaps encouraged by the decision of Mr. Justice Cnrrrr in the “pre-historic boat case,” considered that he had “ a lawful possession, good against all the world of, and therefore the property in,” the remains. He promised to give the cofiln to the Maidstone Museum, and “assigned his . right” to the skeleton to a local surgeon. But the cofllu and its contents, when discovered, had been imprudently removed to the mortuary in the parish churchyard, and it is stated that the vicar now refuses to part with them, and intends to have them interred in the churchyard. We presume that the vicar’s contention is based on the common law obligation to provide decent burial; but there appear to be some difiiculties in his way. In the first place, the obligation, as usually laid down, docs not extend beyond the person under whose roof the death takes place, and applies only to the burial of remains “ offending the feelings or endangering the health of the living.” If it extends to skeletons and remains fifteen hundred years old, the British Museum and the College of Surgeons will have much to answer for. In the next place, it seems somewhat difficult to prove that the Roman lady was a parishioner, and unless she was, the burial of her remains in the churchyard would be an invasion of the rights of the living parishioners, and would require to be assented to by the churchwardens on their behalf._ Again, who is to bear the cost of the re-interment‘? The statutory provisions enabling the expense to be thrown on the poor rate do not appear to be applicable to the case of the re-interment of remains supposed to be those of “a lady of rank." And, lastly, as the property in the Roman lady and her coffin appears to be in the owner of the soil in which they were discovered or his assignee, the vicar would seem to render himself liable to proceedings if he should insist on interring them.
THE DECISION of Mr. Justice KBKEWICII in Allcard v. Skinner contains an exposition of the law as to gifts made under undue influence, and renders it in one point at least more dcfinitof viz_., as to the nature of the competent independent advice which is allowed to bc set off against such influence. The _donor in tho case was a sister in a convent who subsequently left it and wished to recall her gifts. The donee was the lady at the head of the convent, who took, of course, not for herself, but for the sisterhood. Thc relation between the parties was thus a religions one, and it was held that so subtle and so strong is religious influence that a person surrounded by it day by day in couventual life_could not but be unduly afiected by it. The influence, then, being so strong that the donor by herself was not a free person, how could the gift be supported? Clearly by re-enforcing her in some way so as to put her in the position of a free person. It was settled by Rhodes v. Bate (14 W. R. 292, l (lh. 252) that one way of doing this was to give her competent independent advice. l‘he present casc decides that such advice need not bc legal advice, and that, if given, it is sufficient to save the gift for the donee, eve_n though the influence on tho donor be so strong as to mak6_ It certain that the advice will not be taken. As to the first polllb Mr. J usticc KEKlZ\\'lCl[ thought that, in a case like the Present: involving a conflict of reason and emotion, the advice of a prudint layman would be better than that of a lawyer (why, W9 “Ye 3 a
loss to imagine), and such advice had in fact been Elven; Q As t°