Page images
PDF
EPUB

The reason he wrote the paper was this. There were two schemes placed before the remuneration tribunal-the London (South of England) scheme and the Liverpool (North of England). The latter was accepted, and the London scheme was rejected. If they took the scheme which had been given them, when conducting sales, it appeared to him that it was not open to a moment's argument, but that they must take the custom. If they took the scheme without the custom, it would be like a body without a soul. It would be a dead thing. It had been decided for them. The Legislature had given to them the Liverpool (North of England) scheme. It was not only to the interest of solicitors to conduct sales, but, considering that they were the trustees for the great profession coming after them, it was a much higher platform to take to see one of the things given to them they did not deliberately throw away. They were appointed by Act of Parliament conductors of sales; and it was absolutely essential under these circumstances, when it was probable a most radical system of registration would be introduced, that they should show that they were the men of affairs with regard to the transfer of land. If they took the Liverpool scheme without the Liverpool custom, the thing would be reduced to absolute nonsense. These were his reasons for bringing it forward, and he only wished to say that he was of the same opinion still.

Mr. ADDISON had very little objection to the motion as altered, but he would have strongly objected if it were to go forth in a hasty way that they were all of opinion that they were to destroy the auctioneers of the City of London, and take their business into their own hands. Sales were conducted in London so totally differently from the way they were conducted in the country, that there was really no parallel between the two cases, and all they, as solicitors, could desire to do was to do that which was in the interest, not altogether of their own pockets, but principally of those of their clients; and one of the things which the committee must set itself most seriously to consider was whether it was, not for the advantage of the solicitor, but for the advantage of the client, that this division of labour in London, which had been allowed to grow up, and was now in force, should be put aside for another system. There was also another serious matter. It was not likely the auctioneers of London, as a body, would allow such an inroad to be made on their remuneration without some measure of retaliation; and he thought that the question of the transfer of land was one of serious moment, and those who were very anxious to cut down the proper remuneration for all sorts of work would begin to say, "The solicitors and auctioneers of London are quarrelling as to how they are to divide the remuneration for the sale of land," and that there was some reason to see whether the remuneration should not be further reduced.

Mr. FORD suggested that the question was now so important that the report ought to go to the general body of members, instead of to the council. Mr. GRIBBLE, in reply, referring to Mr. Addison's remarks, said that he had never heard a more injurious doctrine started than the suggestion that the society should, before appointing a committee of the society to consider a matter affecting their own interests, consider whether the auctioneers would retaliate. He trusted that if they did the solicitors were quite strong enough to hold their own. He did not see that the auctioneers would be affected to any very great extent; but if they were, the solicitors were certainly strong enough to take care of themselves.

The motion was carried unanimously, and the following gentlemen were appointed a committee, with power to add to their number:-Mr. C. E. Matthews (Birmingham), Mr. Kenion (Liverpool), Mr. Grinham Keen, Mr. T. Bellringer (Liverpool), Mr. Pennington, Mr. Howlett (Brighton), Mr. J. Hunter, Mr. Manisty, Mr. Morrell (Oxford), Mr. Cooper (Manchester), Mr. Bromhead (Sheffield), Mr. Walker (York), Mr. Pye-Smith (Sheffield), Mr. Waldron (Cardiff), Mr. Jones (Young, Jones, Roberts, & Hall), Mr. Vassall (Bristol), Mr. Burrell (Farrer & Co.), Mr. Wilmer (Richard Smith & Wilmer), Mr. J. A. Iliffe, Mr. Moberley (Southampton), Mr. Bassett (Rochester), Mr. Melvill Green (Worthing), Mr. H. E. Gribble, and Mr. J. Addison.

Mr. WHITE asked if the committee were all in favour of the North of England scheme, or were they taken indiscriminately? He wished the

gone on year after year and had increased in interest, and there was need for fresh regulations. The subjects appeared to be selected in a haphazard way, and it might be better for the council to select a few subjects of special interest. It would be well for a committee to be appointed to consider generally whether there could be any improvements and alterations in the mode of conducting these meetings. He moved that it be referred to a committee. The PRESIDENT suggested that Mr. Green should give notice of a resolution on the subject.

Mr. GREEN accordingly gave notice for the April meeting.

Mr. COULTON said he was quite willing that the whole matter should be brought forward in April, so that the subject might be referred to a committee, or to the council, as members might desire.

Mr. HUNTER suggested that the word "provincial" should be omitted, and that any resolution should be made to apply to all the general meetings. THE CLUB AGAIN.

Mr. FORD asked, according to notice :-"Is the president of the society, and are the members of the council, unanimously of opinion that the Law Club (as constituted after the commencement of my chancery action in regard to the old club) is beneficial to the general body of members of the society; what is the estimated value of the premises occupied by the club; and what is the present number of members of the club who are members of the society?

[ocr errors]

Mr. MELVILL GREEN rose to order. He did not think that the members were entitled to get up and ask the president his opinion upon any particular question. He begged that the president would not answer Mr. Ford's question. It seemed to him not a proper question, and he did not see why the president should be liable to be cross-examined by any member who chose to do so.

The PRESIDENT: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Green, but I have no objection to answering the question. For myself, I may say I was not a member of the club as it was constituted before Mr. Ford's action was brought. It was only after the club was reconstituted that I became a member of it, and I am now a member. I became a member of the club because I thought it was so extremely convenient to me, as I was continually in the Royal Courts adjacent, and I found it so convenient, that not only did I join it and am still a member, but both my partners joined it and are still members. This is my personal experience. As far as the members of the council are concerned I really do not know, for I have not asked them their tinually at the club, I should judge that, at all events, so far as they are but, I may say, for the members of the council whom I meet conopinion; concerned, they find it, in the terms of this inquiry, "beneficial" and "beneficial to the general body of members of the society." As to the estimated value of the premises I cannot answer that, because we have no separate estimate of the value of the premises occupied by the club. The whole building is assessed in one sum for parochial purposes, and we have no means of detaching from the general estimate what is the particular valne of the club. As to "the present number of members of the club who are members of the society," I can only answer in this way, that nobody can be a member of the club who is not a member of the society; therefore, all members of the club are necessarily members of the society.

Mr. FORD: That is not my question. What is the number of members of the club?

The PRESIDENT: That is not the question. Your question is, "What is I say all the members of the club are members of the society. the number of members of the club who are members of the society ?" and

Mr. FORD: What number of members are there?

The PRESIDENT: That I am not able to answer; but I have no doubt the secretary of the club will give you the information.

STUDENTS' FEE FUND.

Mr. FORD asked, according to notice: "Referring to the statements made by Mr. KEEN said he had suggested two or three names. Mr. Roscoe, when president of the society, at general meetings held in July, committee to be geographical entirely-a representative for every county, if 1885, and January, 1886, as to the Students' Fee Fund created by sections of the Solicitors Act, 1877, what is the sum now available for legal education in connection with that section ?" Mr. Roscoe had said, at the meeting in July, 1885, that the funds were more than absorbed, and at the meeting in July, 1886, that there were ample funds available.

they pleased.

Mr. FORD said there were no less than seven members of the council on the committee. It was not satisfactory. It should be more general in connection with each county.

Mr. KEEN said that Mr. Ford would find one or two members of the council were representative men, purposely chosen because they represented country

districts.

PROVINCIAL MEETINGS.

The following notice stood on the paper::-"Mr. J. Coulton will move: (1) That, at the annual provincial meetings of this society, a printed copy of all the papers be handed to every member on application at the place of meeting or during the meeting. (2) That the papers be taken as read, and the whole time of the meeting devoted to their discussion. (3) That the papers be grouped into sections, and the time apportioned to each section in proportion to quantity and importance. (4) That no speaker be allowed more than ten minutes. (5) That the author of a paper should have the right of reply. (6) That no thanks be given to any member or official of the society."" In moving the first resolution, he observed that it was much easier to follow a speaker with his paper before one. Mr. FORD seconded the motion.

Mr. MELVILL GREEN expressed himself as quite opposed to the motion, believing that it would tend to spoil the provincial meetings if it were carried. He would prefer a motion passed that no one should be permitted to have copies of the papers until after they had been read. It would be better if a committee were appointed to consider whether any improvements should be made in the method of holding the provincial meetings. The meetings had

but were quite reconcilable. What he had meant to say was that the council Mr. Roscoe said the two things were spoken under different circumstances, declined to allocate the particular expenses with regard to every particular item of their audits, such as registration of solicitors, education of articled clerks, general purposes, and so on. But he had said that if they were so apportioned, and that if they attributed to the articled clerks' fund all the educational expenses, a due proportion of the expenses connected with the building, and so on, that the articled clerks got their full value, and it was all absorbed. That was perfectly true according to the estimates the council had made. It might or might not be accurate, but that was what he had meant. He had meant to say that if the special expenses were taken, which were for the benefit of articled clerks, in the way of lectures, examinations, and so on, and a due proportion of the general expenses were added, the articled clerks got their value of their money, and all their money was spent upon them. On the second occasion the subject was as to how the education of articled clerks could be improved. Mr. Phillimore was speaking of large funds, and wanted to go minutely into the question in order to shew that the society ought to spend more money. All he (Mr. Roscoe) had said was that the council did not distribute the funds of the society in the way Mr. Phillimore proposed; but if he would shew that there were any objects of education which required the expenditure of money, there would be n difficulty in finding it. He had not meant to say that the society shoulo contribute any particular part of the articled clerks' fees, but out of thɖ

[blocks in formation]

Mr. FORD: Sine die.

The motion was agreed to.

The following were the motions in question:-"(1) This meeting, whilst recognising the good intentions of the council in the small grants recently made to Liverpool and Newcastle-on-Tyne for educational purposes, is of opinion that these and similar grants should be larger in amount, and should be made without the conditions hitherto imposed by the council." "(2) That the interests of solicitors and the public require that many public legal appointments, from which solicitors are at present excluded, should be thrown open to them." A vote of thanks to the president, moved by Mr. FORD, and seconded by Mr. MACARTHUR, terminated the proceedings.

WORCESTER AND WORCESTERSHIRE INCORPORATED

LAW SOCIETY.

The annual meeting of this society was held at the Law Library, Pierpoint-street, Worcester, on the 25th ult.; Mr. F. Corbett, president, in the chair.

The report of the committee and treasurer's accounts for the past year were received and adopted.

The following officers of the society were unanimously elected for the ensuing year:-Mr. Joseph Higgin Whatley, of Malvern, president; Mr. A. W. Knott, vice-president; Mr. E. A. Davis, hon. treasurer; and Mr. F. Ronald Jeffery, hon. secretary.

The following gentlemen-viz., Messrs. F. Corbett, W. P. Hughes, T. G. Hyde, T. Southall, and J. Stallard, jun.-were appointed members of the committee for the ensuing year in addition to the officers of the society.

On the motion of Mr. T. Southall, seconded by Mr. E. A. Davis, the best thanks of the society were accorded to Mr. F. Corbett for the very efficient manner in which he discharged the duties of president during the past year, and a cordial vote of thanks was also given to Mr. J. H. Whatley for his services as vice-president for the past year.

At this meeting Mr. Anthony Swainson Allen, registrar of the Worcester County Court, and Mr. Samuel Bromley Garrard, of that city, were elected members of the society.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee:Members. The present number of members of the society is sixty-three, as against sixty-one last year; two new members, Messrs. Lawrence Martin Curtler and Walter Thomas Curtler, of Worcester, having been

elected. The number of subscribers is nine.

Conducting Sales by Auction.-The committee desire to draw the attention of members to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Re Wilson (29 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 438, 29 Ch D. 790), where the court held that, where the conducting fee authorized to be charged by the order for con. ducting an auction sale is charged by the solicitor, the solicitor must do the whole of the work for which such ad valorem remuneration was provided. In the case in question an auctioneer had been employed, and his fee of £55s. had been allowed by the taxing master against the estate, and a surveyor had also been employed and his charges allowed by the taxing master; but certain matters had been done by the surveyor and charged for in his bill against the estate which the court considered should have been done by the person conducting the sale; under these circumstances the solicitor was not allowed the ad valorem fee for conducting the sale, but £2 2s. for instructing auctioneer and surveyor, and £3 3s. for particulars. It is believed that the work specified in the surveyor's charges was of the following nature:-surveying property and comparing plans attached to deeds with existing boundaries; preparing plan and dividing into lots for purposes of sale; making copies; conference with solicitor as to re-lotting; survey of house and grounds for particulars of sale; valuation of property; preparation of plan in detail; measuring boundaries and checking area, &c. The court seemed disposed to hold that the ad valorem conducting fee was never chargeable when the client pays the surveyor and auctioneer, but they did not give a concluded opinion on the point.

Claims of the Crown for Duties.-In the last session of Parliament Mr. Gregory called attention to the position of trustees, executors, and others, liable to the payment of duties to the Crown, and moved for the introduction of certain clauses in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill providing for a certain limitation in point of time in respect of such liabilities. Your committee regret that the introduction of these clauses was not carried, a, in their opinion, the subject is one demanding early attention. Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883.-Referring to the report of the committee for the year 1885, and to the question of the right of bailiffs to the percentages for cost of distresses allowed by the Act, amounting to £3 per cent. on sums exceeding £20 and not exceeding £50, and of £2 per cent. on sums exceeding £50, the committee draw the attention of members to the case of Coode and Another v. Johns and Another (35 W. R. 477), where Grove and Grantham, JJ., on appeal from a decision of a county court judge, held that the bailiffs were not entitled to these percentages, but that the same belonged to the landlord, on the ground that it could never have been intended that the landlord should levy at his own cost,

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION.

The following candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order were successful at the intermediate examination held on the 13th day of January, 1887.

Adderley, Rupert Thomas
Addison, James Flockhart
Allen, John William Bird
Appleby, Alfred
Arnall, William Ernest
Bayliffe, Reginald Deane
Bell, Ralph
Berry, Thomas

Bishop, Frederick William
Blackman, Arthur
Blanckensee, Solomon James
Bolton, John Edward
Bower, George Walter
Bowles, Charles Robert
Braithwaite, Frederick Charles
Breese, Charles Edward
Brooke, Henry Daniel
Bubb, Edward Wallis, B.A.
Cafferatta, Wilfrid Charles
Carden, Herbert Arthur John
Carr, George Arthur
Charlesworth, Arthur Heywood
Chinn, Alan Edward
Clarke, Henry Garrard
Clements, Charles Edmund
Clutterbuck, Walter Sweeting
Copley, Harry

Cozens-Hardy, Ferneley
Crouch, Leonard Wing
Danvers, Robert Augustus, B A.
Davies, John Arthur
Dodd, Charles Haffenden,
Duffitt, John Edgar

Earle, Percy William Leighton
Eaves, William John Stanley
Ellison, John Vincent Edward
Evans, Arthur Acton
Faber, Charles Edward
Fletcher, James Herbert
Flint, Ernest Reginald
Freeman, John Edward
Fullilove, Thomas William
Gibson, James Henry
Gilbert, Arthur

Goodacre, Hugh George
Gregson, William Eugene
Griffiths, John Wakeman
Gwyn, Charles Jackson, B.A.
Hall, Marriott Firth
Hannen, Henry Arthur
Harby, Travers Bidder
Hawkins, Benjamin
Helliwell, Walter
Havelock, George Eric
Hickley, Leonard William North
Hobson, George Wentworth
Hodge, Wilmot
Hodges, Alfred
Howard, Charles
Howe, Charles Edward
Humphreys, John

Leacroft, Frederick Richard Becher
Leggatt, Frederick Clement Every
Levett, John Arthur

Lewis, Edward William
Lundi, Frederico George

Macdonald, George Alexander
Malkin, Tom William
Maples, Ashley Kilshaw

Marshall, Francis Eden, B.A.
Martin, Charles

Marzetti, Eustace

Maughan, George
Maylam, Percy
Millikin, Ernest, B.A.
Milner, Ralph
Miller, George Ernest
Moordaff, Charles Henry
Mosley, Herbert Thomas
Neal, William Phené
Noble, John Campion
Oates, Joseph Henry
Oldfield, John Smith
Onions, Hubert
Pattinson, Hubert Foden
Perkins, Frank, B. A.
Phillips, Mark Thomas
Platt, George Francis
Pratt, John Tidd

Rathbone, Herbert Reynolds, B.A.
Ravenscroft, Walter

Richardson, Aubry
Roberts, Harry
Roberts, Rhys Counsell
Robinson, Arthur
Robinson, Charles Phineas
Robinson, Temple William
Rogers, Alfred Watney

Russell, John Stanley Vaughan
Sadler, William Russell

Samuel, Thomas John

Sarjeant, Frederick Arthur

Scanes, Ernest Albert

Sewart, Allan

Sharman, Charles Crank

Sidebotham, John James, LL.B.

Sinnett, John Parry

Slinger, George Nicholas

Smith, Charles Arthur

Smith, Charles Lawson, B.A., LL.B.

Smith, Joshua Pritchard Fellowes

Smyth, William Knight

Spark, John Henry
Steel, Frederick William
Street, Allen Peter
Sturt, Bertram

Swire, Samuel, B.A.
Tallack, Edwin

Tatham, George Sinclair
Thompson, Frank, B.A.
Thring, George Herbert, B.A.
Tickell, Arthur Hollick
Tolley, Frederick
Turner, Thomas
Twiss, Horace William
Vise, Frederick Charles Damer
Wagstaff, William
Walker, William Earl

Watkin, Alfred Hobson

Hutchins, William John Mortimer
Instone, Stanley
Jackson, Robert Harry
Jagger, Frank Herbert
James, James John
Johnson, Albert John William
Julian, Thomas William
Kinloch, Harry Graham, B.A.
Knight, Hugh Coleraine, B.A.
Knott, Henry William Howard
Lamb, William Richard
Langham, Frederick George, B.A., Winter, Robert Gilroy
LL.B.
Wright, Arthur, B.A.

Westcott, Arthur Herbert
White, Archer Moresby
White, Harrold Jennings, B.A.
Williams, William Alfred

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Holden, Cecil

Hole, Michael
Holmes, Harry

Holt, Henry Spawforth, B.A.
Hovell, Robert de Berdt
Habbersty, John Paley, B.A.
Hughes, William

Hulton, William Arthur
Hunt, Ernest James

Illingworth, Lawrence Bradley
Jackson, Samuel Percy
Jerman, James Colin Stuart
Johnson, Edward William
Jones, Frank Wolstencroft

had for some time acted as deputy-coroner. He was admitted a solicitor in 1879.

Mr. ARTHUR JOHN HANSLIP WARD, solicitor, of Harwich and Dovercourt, has been elected Town Clerk of the Borough of Harwich, in succession to Mr. Edward Chapman, resigned. Mr. Ward was admitted a solicitor in 1882.

Mr. PHILIP SPENCER GREGORY, barrister, has been appointed by the Bishop of London to be Honorary Lay Secretary to the London Diocesan Conference, in succession to Mr. John Walter Buchanan Riddell, resigned. Mr. Gregory is the third son of Mr. John Gregory, and was born in 1851. He was educated at King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the second class of the Classical Tripos in 1873. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in November, 1875, and practises in the Chancery

Jones, Llewellyn Golyddon Albert Division.

Harries

Kendall, Edmund Walter
Knight, Edward Albert
Legassicke-Crespin, Claude William
Leggett, Percival Henry Aufrere
Linthorne, Richard Roope
Lymn, Frederic Charles

Macdonald, John William
McNab, John Humber
Malkin, George Robert

Marshall, Frederic the Younger
Maw, Frederick James
Melly, Augustus George
Morgan, Frederick Williams
Morris, Walter Edward

Muspratt, Percy Camerom, B.A.
Naylor, Percy

Nelson, John James

Newell, Matthew Banks
Norton, Edmund Scott
Nutting, Louis Walter Bligh
Parkin, Montagu Lewis, M.A.
Pawle, Alfred George
Payn, Arthur Stransom
Philips, George Iason
Porter, Charles Hornby
Price, Thomas Protheroe
Prior, Edmund Blackstone
Procter, John Robert
Ray, John Lindley
Roberts, Arthur

Robinson, Hugh Mansfield
Robinson, John

Rutherford, Henry Taylor

Sansom, Percy Burnett

Sheffield, Robert William, B.A.
Siveter, William Alfred
Skidmore, Arthur Charles

Smith, Arthur, B.A.

Smith-Spark, Gerald Spark, M.A. Spilsbury, George Hubball

Spokes, William Silverthorne

Stubbs, William Henry
Swann, Francis Ernest

Taylor, Samuel Robert
Thompson, William

Thomson, Frederick Samuel

Thurn, Colin Campbell im, M.A. Thursfield, William Brunton

Tolhurst, Bernard Wilshire

Tremellen, Edgar Herbert
Trimmer, Edward Douglas
Turner, Francis

Veale, William George, B. A.
Wakeford, William Frederick
Wakley, Thomas Finsbury
Watson, David Jouffroy
White, Arthur Cecil
Willey, William
Williams, Henry Alexander
Wilson, George Bailey, B.A.
Wooding, Peter Jones

[blocks in formation]

EDWYN FRANCIS SCUDAMORE STANHOPE (Lord Stanhope) has succeeded to the Peerage on the death of his father, the ninth Earl of Chesterfield. Lord Chesterfield was born in 1854. He was educated at Eton and a Brasenose College, Oxford, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in November, 1880. He si a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Herefordshire.

Mr. JOSEPH ARNALL, solicitor, of Leicester, has been elected President of the Leicester Law Society for the ensuing year. Mr. Arnall was admitted a solicitor in 1854.

Mr. EDWARD MACNAGHTEN, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has been sworn in as a member of the Privy Conncil, and has been created Baron Macnaghten of Runkerry.

Mr. CHARLES BATHURST LUIS FERNANDES, solicitor, of Wakefield, has been appointed Clerk to the Wakefield Local Board. Mr. Fernandes was admitted a solicitor in 1857.

Mr. RICHARD CLARENCE HALSE, solicitor, of 61, Cheapside, has been elected Chairman of the Markets Committee in the Court of Common Council. Mr. Halse was admitted a solicitor in 1860. He is a Common Councilman for Cheap Ward.

Mr. CHARLES F. MARTELLI, solicitor, of 10, Staple-inn, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. G. M. ROBINSON, solicitor (of the firm of Robinson & Turnbull), of 4, Mitre-court-chambers, Temple, E.C., has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. BASIL WICKINGS SMITH, Solicitor (of the firm of F. Wickings Smith & Son), of 23, Lincoln's-inn-fields, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. JOSEPH HIGGINS WHATLEY, solicitor, of Great Malvern, has been elected President of the Worcester and Worcestestershire Incorporated Law Society for the ensuing year. Mr. Whatley was admitted a solicitor in 1856.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

ISAAC HALL, HERBERT GARNETT JANION, and MONTAGU HEATH HALL, solicitors, Manchester, so far as regards the said Isaac Hall. Jan. 19. [Gazette, Jan. 28.] ARTHUR OCTAVIUS BAYLY and EDWARD HENLEY, Solicitors (Combs, Bayly, & Henley), 25, Bucklersbury. Jan. 28.

HARRY REID LEMPRIERE and THOMAS ASTLEY HORACE HAMOND, solicitors (Lempriere, Hamond, & Browne), 56, Lincoln's-inn-fields. Dec. 31. ARTHUR CRUWYS SHARLAND and EDWARD FREDERICK CHILDS CLARKE, solicitors (Sharland & Clarke), Tiverton, Devon. Jan. 13. The said Edward Frederick Childs Clarke will practise at the offices of the late firm under the style of Sharland & Clarke, but on his own account exclusively.

GENERAL.

[Gazette, Feb. 1.]

A meeting was held on Saturday afternoon last in Lincoln's-inn Hall, to consider the advisability of establishing a society dealing with the history of English law. Lord Justice Fry presided, and there were present the American Minister, Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Lord Justice Lindley, Messrs. Cookson, Q.C., Cock, Q.C., Romer, Q.C., Hyde Clarke, P. E. Dove, Jeune, S. Moore, W. A. Linsay (Portcullis), E. Walford, and about 100 members of the bar and others interested. Letters were read from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Derby, Mr. Justice Cave, Mr. Justice Wills, and others expressing interest in the society, and regretting their inability to attend. On the motion of the American Minister, seconded by Mr. M. Cookson, Q.C., it was resolved to establish the society, which it was resolved, on the motion of the Lord Chief Justice, seconded by Prof. F. Pollock, to call the "Selden Society." Other motions were proposed by Messrs. Hyde Clarke, Stuart Moore, J. C. Wilson (Oxford), Jeune, A. sisting of the American Minister, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Cock, and W. A. Linsay. A provisional committee was appointed, conFry, Mr. Justice Wills, M. Cookson, Q.C., F. Meadows White, QC, Professors A. V. Dicey, F. Pollock, W. W. Skeat, Messrs. R. Campbell, Hyde Clarke, H. W. Elphinstone, F. H. Jeune, C. Trice Martin, F.S.A., Stuart Moore, with the hon. secretary, Mr. P. Edward Dove. A cordial vote of thanks to the Benchers of Lincoln's-inn for the loan of the Hall was passed by acclamation, on the motion of Lord Justice Lindley, seconded by Mr. Meadows White, Q.C. A vote of thanks to the chairman (Lord Justice Fry), proposed by the American Minister, and seconded by the Lord Chief Justice, brought the meeting to a close.

At the Guildhall Police Court on Tuesday, John Silas Poole, of 113, Vauxhall-bridge-road, was summoned at the instance of the Incorporated Law Society for, on the 3rd of September, 1886, unlawfully, wilfully, and falsely pretending to be duly qualified to act as a solicitor. Mr. C. O. Humphreys appeared in support of the summons. Mr. Charles Maynard stated that in September last he was clerk to Messrs. Fisher, Nichellas, & Co., at 43, London-wall, now of Billiter-square. He received the letter produced, demanding payment of £5, which he owed to a Mr. Bull. Ile understood that this communication came from a solicitor. Witness made inquiries, and then went to the Law Society. He wrote to the defendant and informed him of what he had done. Subsequently he received a county court summons from Mr. Bull. He paid the money into court. By the defendant.-He took no notice of the first letter; but when he received the second he shewed it to a friend, who advised him what to do. Mr. Lloyd Griffith Worth stated that in consequence of directions he went to 187, Stewart's-road, Clapham. Defendant had left there. Ultimately witness found the defendant at 113, Vauxhall-bridgeroad. He shewed him two letters, and informed him that they had been forwarded to the Law Society, and that he was instructed to make inquiries as to whether he had written them. The defendant told him that he did write them at the request of Mr. Bull. It was, the defendant added, Mr. Bull who took out the county court summons. The debt had been paid, and he had received 2s. 6d. for his trouble. The defendant said that his name was not in the "Law List." Moreover he did not act as a solicitor, nor did he pretend to be one. He was a debt collector, and acted in that capacity. He was a poor man. The Alderman imposed a penalty of 40s. and £1 1s. costs.

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

Thomson & anr v Strickland & ors
Cogswell & anr v Nagle
Saunders v Pellew
Rawlins v Overell
Wertheimer v Milbank

In re Arbitration between Holliday & C› & Lawry
Trower v Trower & ors

In re a Solicitor Expte Incorporated Law Soc
Haynes & Co v Wilson Brothers

Great West Shepherds Imd v Sargent, sued, &c
Moll v Newman

Great West Shepherds Imd v Sargent, sued, &c

Williams v Sebright & anr

Hanbury & ora v Brocc

Tuck & Sons v Priester, sued &o

Skinner v Bamber

Smith & anr v Webb & anr

In re an Arbitration between A Sins and F Lenders & Co

Wandsworth Common Conservators v The Official Trustees & the Patriotic Fund

[blocks in formation]

Set down 16th December, 1886 Middlesex TR Kemp Justice Mathew

Martin v North Met Trams Co Mr

Set down 16th December. 1886 Middlesex Mayor, &c, of the Staple of England
v Governor & Co of the Bank of England Mr Finlay Baron Pollock
Set down 16th December, 1886 Middlesex Daplany v Davis Mr Pollard
LCJ of England

Set down 17th December, 1886 Middlesex Callaghan v Frith Mr Buckaill
Justice Day

Set down 17th Decembar, 1886 Middlesex Cleghorn MacDougall Justice Day

Set down 18th December, 1886 Middlesex Boaler v Holder Pltff in Persɔn Justice Mathew

Set down 18th December, 1886 Middlesex Jonas v Crawshay Mr A Cross
LCJ of England

Middlesex Gloucestorshire Bkg Co v Edwards,
LC J of England

Middlesex Lovering & Co v Bluck, Bluck v
Justice Stephen

Set down 20th December, 1886
execu'or, &c Mr Bosanquet
Set down 21st December, 1886
Lovering & Co Mr Lynch
Set down 21st December, 1886 Middlesex Bluck v Johnson & ors Mr Lynch
Justice Manisty
Set down 22nd December, 1886 Middlesex Cambefort & Co v Chapman Mr

Willis Justice Mathew

[blocks in formation]

Warwickshire Buchanan & anr v Hardy Magistrate's case

Staffordshire, Burton-on-Trent Moorcroft v Harrison. County Court. Defendant's appeal HH Judge Woodforde

Leicestershire, Loughborough Marson v Marriott County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H Jadge Hooper

Middlesex, Westminster Ramsden v Musical Exchange 1d County Court Plaintiff's appeal HH Judge Bayley

Northumberland Laycock & ors v Assessment Committee of Tynemouth Union. Quarter Sessions, 12 & 13 Vict, o 45, s 13

London Pascall & ors v Pilley Mayor's Court Defendant's appeal The Recorder

Same Johnston v Moolla Mayor's Court Defendant's appeal The Recorder Met. Pol. Dist. Penny v Hanson Magistrate's case

Middlesex, Bow Brown v Dowson & Worth County Court Plaintiff's appel HH Judge Prentice

Nottingham Burton v Acton Magistrate's case

Northumberland, Newcastle Pinkney & anr v Owners of Waldridge Colliery County Court Defendants' appeal H H Judge Holl

Essex The Queen v Johnson Nisi for mandamus to elect Churchwardens Expte Vesey

Yorkshire, Bradrord The Queen v H H the Judge of County Court of Yorkshire, holden at Bradford, and Craven Bank 1d Nisi to hear, &c appln for new trial of interpleader issue Expte E. Hartley

Carmarthenshire The Queen v Jj of Carmarthen Nisi for mandamus to hear appeal Expte Bishop

Nottingham, Mansfield Frost v Pogson & ors County Court Plaintiff's appeal. HH Judge Bristowe

Middlesex, Shoreditch Turney v Cox & anr County Court Defendant Harriett Price's appeal HH Judge Prentice

Norwich Guardians of St Pancras v Guardians of the Norwich Incorp ɔration Quarter Se sions 12 & 13 Vict, c 45, 11

Middlesex, Brompton Lang v Lovatt (sued, &c) County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H Judge Stonor

Devonshire Kingsbury Union v Church wardens, &c of East Stonehouse Order
of Sessions Appellants' nisi to quash
Middlesex North & South London Junction Ry Co v Assessment Committee of
Brentford Union & ors Quarter Sessions 12 & 13 Vio, c 35, s 13 (case stated
by arbitrators)

Kent The Queen v Poole Nisi for quo warranto as member of Vestry of
Parish of Lee Expte Rector and Churchwardens of the said Parish
Middlesex Priest & anr v Archer Magistrate's case

Essex, Colchester Shaw v Girvan County Court Plaintiff's appeal HH
Judge Abdy

Liverpool The Queen v Raffles & Royal Liver Friendly Society Nisi to hear
&c complaint Expte Dougherty
Middlesex, Bloomsbury Wilson v Attenborough & ors
tiff's appeal HH Judge Eddis
Hertfordshire, Royston Postle v Porter County Court
H Judge Bagshawe

Met Pol Dist Patten v Wood Magistrate's case
Sussex Lewis v Fermor Magistrate's case

County Court Plain

Defendant's appeal H

Middlesex, Bow Watson v Weekes & anr County Court Defendant's appeal
HH Judge Prentice

Hampshire, Portsmouth Pinto & Sons v Droncquer (Southern Count es &c Bank
clats) County Court Claimant's appeal HH Judge Leonard
Bedfordshire, Leighton Buzzard Hanmer & anr v King County Court De-
fendant's appeal H H Judge Whigham
Middlesex, Bow Sutton v Stead & anr County Court
Plaintiff's appeal
HH Judge Prentice

Merionethshire Foster ▾ Diphwys Casson Slate Co ld & anr Magistrate's London Stock & Share, &c, Co v Galmoye Mayor's Court Defendant's appeal

case

Bolton Whellan v Rodgers & anr Magistrate's case
Northumberland, Newcastle

appeal H H Judge Holl

letter

Suffolk The Queen v Judge of the County Cour of Suff k holder at Ipswich and Mitchell Nisi to hear, &c, action "Mitchell v Blyth" (expte Blyth)

Turner v Hickney County Court Defendant's Parts of Holland The Queen v Rev J T Dove & ors Jj, &c, & Re.d Nisi to
state case (expte Read)

Salop Lawley v Merricks Magistrate's case
Hampshire, Southampton Miell & anr v Frampton County Court (Equity)
Defendant's appeal H H Judge Leonard No note taken by Judge-vide
Lancashire, Liverpool Evans & ors v Holt & Co County Court Plaintiff's
appeal HH Judge Thompson
Lincolnshire The Queen v Davy & ors Nisi to set aside return and for attach-
Lancashire The Queen v Haslehurst Nisi for certiorari and disallowance and
surcharge Expte Abercrombie

ment

England The Queen v The Right Hon Baron Penzance and ors Niai for
prohibition to Chancery Court in suite Hakes v Bell-Cox Expte Bell-Cox
London Engrand Freres v Raper City of London Court Defendant's appl
Same Bath v Keeling Mayor's Court Defendant's appeal

Yorkshire, Leeds Lomas & Co v Williamson, Dana, & Co County Court
Defendant's appeal H H Judge Greenhow

Glamorganshire, Swansea Shepherd & anr v Morris County Court Plaintiff's
appeal H H Judge Williams

Ryde Munro v Watson Magistrate's case

London Mendelssohn & anr v Cohen & ors Mayor's Court Plaintiffs' appeal
Essex The Queen v H H Judge Abdy & Clarke Nisi for prohibition from
proceeding on order amending judgment in action Clarke v Cotton Expte
Clarke

Kent, Greenwich Steele v Easton County Court Defendant's appeal H H
Judge Powell
Hertfordshire, Barnet Rome, trading as Wilkinson & Son v Page (S Page,
clm) County Court Claimant's appeal H H Judge Whigham

Met Asemt Dist The Queen v Jj's of General Assessment Sessions Nisi for
certiorari for order at instance of West London Extension Ry

Met Assmt Dist The Queen v Same Nisi for mandamus to draw up order
Expte West London Extension Ry

Kent, Tonbridge Spencer & anr v Bartram & anr County Court Plaintiffs
appl H H Judge Cox

Sam, Gravesend The Queen v W Fletcher, Esq, Jj, &c, & aur Nisi to hear,
&c appln for summons Expte London, Tilbury, & Suthend Ry Co
Lancashire, Liverpool Nicholson & ors v Dickinson County Court Plaintiffs'
appeal HH Judge Collier

Middlefex, Westminster Real & Personal Advance
Court Plaintiffs' appeal H H Judge Boyley
Yorkshire, Sheffield Mosby v Waterlow & Sous ld
appeal HH Judge Ellison

Staffordshire, Cheadle Ainsworth v Ainsworth
appeal HH Judge Jordan

Kent Rochester Fortune v Penn County Court
Judge Cox

Norfolk, Norwich Flint v Easton County Court
Judge Price

Co ldv Clears County
County Court Defendants'
County Court Defendant's
Plaintiff's appeal H H

Defendant's appeal H H

Lincolnshire, Brigg Chatterton v Cheesman County Court Defendant's
appeal HH Judge S ephen

Glamorganshire, Cardiff Trade Auxiliary Co v Jeham (Wiltshire, clmt)
County Court Claimant's appeal H H Judge Owen
Surrey, Redhill Gibson v Wise County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H Judge
Martineau

Middlesex, Shoreditch Masters v Morris

HH Judge Prentice

County Court Defendant's appeal

Leicestershire, Hinckley Wills v Perkins County Court Defendant's appeal
HH Judge Hooper

Worcestershire, Tenbury Davis v Harvey & Co County Court Defendant's
appeal HH Judge Sir R Kettle

Nottinghamshire, Mansfield Rudd & anr v The New Hucknall Colliery Co ld
County Court Defts' appeal H H Judze Bristowe

Durham, Gateshead Hind v R bertson & Son County Court Defendant's
appeal H H Judge Holl

Shropshire, Ludlow Gwilliam & ors v Butcher County Court Defendant's
appeal H H Judge Rogers

Salford Walton v Hardman Hundred Court
Newcastle upon Tyne McDonald v Lochrane
Same Same v Same Same

Plaintiff's appeal
Magistrate's case

Lancashire Local Board for Waterloo & Seaforth v Lewis Magistrate's case
Met Pol Dist Legg v Gibbs Same

Surrey, Southwark Tillett v Gosbe (Sherry, clmt) County Court Cimt's
appeal HH Judge Holroyd

Buckinghamshire, Newport-Pagnall Yorke v Stroud County Court Plaintiff's
appeal H H Judge Whigham
Oxfordshire The Queen v Inhabitants of Oxfordshire Indictment Verlict
subject to special case

Surrey, Kingston Roake v Cogswell County Court Defendant's appeal HH
Judge Lushington
Durham Bell Stockton & Darlington Sean Tramways Cold Magistrate's
Kent Wheeker v Webb Magistrate's case
Salford Kershaw v Kershaw Magistrate's case
Carnarvonshire Hughes v Owen Magistrate's care

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

Kent, Maidstone Standen v Hook & Co County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H
Judge Homersham Cox
Monmouthshire Lea v Abergavenny Improvement Commissioners Nisi to dis-
charge order as to costs against the Justices

Lincolnshire, Parts of Lindsey The Queen v Jj for Parts of Lindsey Nisi for
mandamus to hear appln (expte Waterhouse) Re Morton Carr Dramags

Surrey, Southwark Woodward v London. Chatham & Dover Ry County Court
Defendant's appeal H H Judge Holroyd

Glamorganshire, Swansea Matthews ▾ Matthews County Court Plaintiff's
appeal HH Judge Williams

London H M Postmaster Gen v Bishop City of London Court Plaintiff'e
appeal

Surrey, Lambeth Smith ▾ Wood & anr County Court Deft Marceau's appeal
HH Judge Powell
Warwickshire, Birmingham Copner v Middleton County Court Defendant's
appeal HH Judge Chalmers
Middlesex, Marylebone Browning v Burbridge Brothers (Burbridge & anr, clt)
County Court Pits appeal HH Judge Stonor

Same, Westminster Petite v Batley County Court Plaintiffs appeal H H
Judge Bayley

Surrey Croydon Union v Reigate Union Quarter Sessions, 12 & 13 Vict c 45,

[blocks in formation]

London The Queen v Jadge of the City of Lon lon Court & Pris) Nisi to hear action (Ex parte Grey)

Monmouthshire Rutherford v Straker Magistate's case

Met Pol Dist Vestry of St Giles, Camberwell v Hunt Same

Cheshire Catherall v Mersey Ry Co County Court Defendants' appeal H H
Judge Ffoulkes

Radnorshire The Queen on peosecution of J Reynolds v W Stephens & war,
Churchwardens of Presteign Mandamus Motion to amend return
London The Queen v King & anr Nisi for certiorari for inquisition Ex parte
H M Postmaster-General

Warwickshire, Birmingham Wones & Co v Sealey (Homer, clmat) County
Court Plaintiffs' appeal H H Judge Chalmers

London Williams v Campbell City Court Plaintiff's appeal Mr Commissioner

Kerr

Glamorganshire, Merthyr Tydfil Kirkhouse v Williams County Court Defendant's appeal H H Judge Williams

Middlesex, Shoreditch Cook v North Met Trams Co County Court Plaintiff's appeal HH Judge Prentice

Middlesex. Bow Clark v Marquis of Londonderry County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H Judge Prentice

Leicestershire Dunkley & anr v Harrison Magistrate's case

Warwickshire Worcester Union v Parish of Birmingham Order of Sessions Met Pol Dist Back v Holmes Magistrate's case

[blocks in formation]

Lincolnshire, Louth Mower v Plaskett County Court Defendant's appeal H H
Judge Stephen

Kent Overseers of Parish of St Lawrence v Jj for County of Kent & ors of Sessions Appellants' nisi to quash

Order

Suffolk, Ipswich Bass & ors v Mescent County Court Plaintiffs' appeal
Judge Roxburgh

H H

London Spa goe v Hughes Prohibition Appeal from Judge at Chambers
Sheffield Kershaw v Sheffield Sanitary Authority Magistrate's case
Leicestershire Haddon v Haddon Magistrate's case

Holmes v Same Same

Middlesex Bonella v Twickenham Local Board Magistrate's case
Same

Met Asemt Dist The Queen v Jj of Gen Assmt Sessions (expte L & N W Ry)
Sommons for mandamus to draw up order (expte L & N W Ry Co) adjd from
Chambers 12 Oct, 1886 (per Grantham, J) to be taken with Nos 102 & 103
Same The Queen v Same Summons for certiorari for order (expte L & N W Ry
Co) adjd from Chambers Same

Parts of Kesteven Asher v Calcraft Magistrate's case
Yorkshire, WR Rylands v Lindley Magistrate's case

Monmouthshire, Newport Aiken & anr v Newport Slipway &e Cold County
Court Defendant's appeal HH Judge Owen

Sussex Pureer v Worthing Local Board Quarter Sessions, 12 & 13 Vict o 45,

8 11

London Cutler v North London Ry Co Mayor's Court Plaintiff's appeal
Same Baker v Ward Mayor's Court Defendant's appeal

Cent Crim Court, London The Queen v Angus & anr Nisi for certiorari for in-
dictment at instance of Defendants

Middlesex, Westminster Atkinson & ors v Fletcher County Court Plaintiff's
HH Judge Bayley

Yorkshire, West Riding Addy v Blake Magistrate's case
Sussex Gardner v Mansbridge Magistrate's case

Midlesex The Queen v Hubert Nisi for certiorari for indictment at the instance
of Defendant

Met Pol Dist The Queen v H J Bushby, Esq, Met Pol Magistrate & Green Ni-i
to hear appla for summons (Ex parte Green)

Surrey, Southwark Kellard v Rooke County Court Plaintiff's appeal
Hampshire, Winchester Crisfield v Brown County Court Plaintiff's appeal

« PreviousContinue »