Page images
PDF
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]

for the opinion of the court whether, under such circiimptances, there was sufllcient evidence, if not rebutted, to prove the publication of the German specifications in this realm prior to the date of the plaintiffal patent so as to avoid the same. It appeared that the two German specifications had been actually open to inspection in the Patent Ofiics Library, the one during some two and a half years and the other during some forty days previously to the date of the plaintiffs’ application. 1’/im/1lon_V. .41['1_’l‘IIII!l80Yl (2i \V. R. Dig. 170, 3 Ch. D. 5. l) ; United Tt’[('1I/I0!!!’ Co. V. HI'T7't90lI, /'0./7, Wal/nr, 4' Co. (30 W. R. 724, 21 Ch. D. 720) ; Otto v. Sm! (34 W. R. 289, 3l_Ch. D. 2~il), were the authorities principally referred to. Ciiirrr, J ., said that the question in issue was one of act, and all that he had to consider was what was the fair inference to be drawn from the facts as admitted. Had the German specifications been published in this country in_such_a way as to become part of the common stock of public knowledge in this country ? This was the (¥l0Sti0l1 asked by the late Master of the Rolls in I'Iimyton v. 111111‘!/lm.<oII. ' o answer it it was not necessary to shew that the knowledge had been acquired by the public in general or by_ the bulk of the public or by any large number of persons, but if a suihcient number, as Jessel, M.R., had said, knew it, or if the means of communication were such that a sufficient number might be presumed or assumed to know it. Had Jesse], M B., been required to re-write his statement of the law he would probably have stated the matter, not as one of presumption or assumption, but as a matter of fact and legitimate inference to be drawn from the facts proved. Of course Jesse], M.R., did not mean that an assumption was to be made without sufficient grounds. Pearson, J., in Om: v. Stu I, and Fry, J., in the lhitrd Tr/tp/l0Il¢ Ca. v. H11»-man, put the question in the same way as did Jessel, lil.B. Upon the facts admitted in the special case it appeared that one of the specifications had, previously to the date of plaintiffs’ patent, been, for a period of two and a half years, accessible to any person who chose to go to the Patent Office. In the Brim!» Jfllll"/H7, notice was given that it could be found there, and also the commissioners classified the foreign patents with the view of facilitating access. With re ard to the other patent it was true that the period was forty dags only. lie did not, however, consider that to be too short a period, an he considered that, having regard to the facilities of access in a free public library, to the information given by the commissioners in the ‘journal, and the length of time, the proper inference was that the pubic did have access to the documents. It appeared to him that the public availed themselves of the knowledge which was thus placed readily available for thorn, and that it was not iiscessar to shew that any person actually did avail himself of such knowledge. As to the circumstances that the specifications were in the German anguage, hs considered that was immaterial, for they were in a language that must be deemed to be well understood. He, therefore, hel that the specifications constituted publication. Costs were reserved. —Cou:4sr;i., Aston, Q_C., and If//I1-§/is/vi,‘ _ROIHt)', t,L.C., and Goarfere. Bouci'roRs, (7r0u"1l¢r.i Q I'i:ur¢I, for (lzrsluu, Div/rinse/1, Q Simpson, Leicester; Jolmnton, Harrison, Q 1’aw:ll, for If. Q R. C. Winder, Bolton.

[ocr errors]

This was an_ adjourned summons. The will of J. Jones contained a provision that it should bc lawful for his wife, by will or codicil, to appoint; that any sum or sums of money, not exceeding altogether the sum of £20,000, should, after her decease, be raised and paid or applied to or for the benefit of such person or persons for such purposes, upon such conditions, and with such restrictions as his said wife should think fit. Mrs. Jonas, the widow, by her will, devised and bequeathed all her estate and cifccts, real and personal, which sho might die possessed of or entitled to unto her only daughter absolutely, for her sole and separate use. K.\Y, J ., held that this dcvise contained in the will of Mrs. Jones operated as an execution of the power in the husband's will to the extent of the sum of £Z0,000.—Cou:<sier., Inglc Joyce; Bi-yg. SOLICITORS, Inylg, Cooper, Q 1l0lm(‘.v_,' I)z(fll¢-Id Q Ilruly.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In this case l'l question arose as to_ the rnarshalling of securities given by a married woman, part of whose income was su ject to a restraint on anticipation. A testator, by his will, gave a sum of £50,000 to trustees, on trust to pay one-third of the _incon_is thereof to his daughter, for her separate use without power of anticipation, and to applyfhs remainder of the income for the benefit of her, her husband (J., an their children. _ The fund was paid into court. The husband died. Au order was made in the action for the paymsnt of one-third of the income of the fund to the dangliter, the application of a. specified sum for the benefit of her family, and the payment o the residue o the income to her. While she was a widow u_he executed a mortgage of her interest in the trust fund, and of some policies of insurance on er life, to F., and an order was made for the payment of her income to him. She afterwards married M., and after her marriage x-he charged her interest in the trust fund in favour of P.,_ who obtained the appointment of a receiver. The income which was received by I ._ was more than sufiicient to pay the interest on his mortgage and the premiums on the policies, and he di not desire to apply any part of the surplus in reduction of his principal debt. The question was how the surplus was to be applied. Nos-i-ii, ., held that, part of the income being, since the second marriage, subject to a restraint on anticipation, while the other part was not, there should be a marshaliing in favour of the second mortgagee, and that the premiums and the interest on the first mortgage should, as between the wife and the second mortgagee, be paid out o_f that part of the income which was subject to the restraint on anticipation.-— Coc.\'s2i., On--low ; Nlokw-v ; 15'. Hal! ; -$'wi'nf¢~n Earl;/. Soniciroiis, Frvre, Forster, Q C0. ; Hie/is if Arnold; lirownlow if Howe : R00/rs ii" Co.

[ocr errors]

Al).\ilNI§TRATIO! Acrio!<—Ssiivrcs or Norics ox Tniiin PAiirr—1i. S. C., l8S33, XVL, 40—L.\Nui.oii.u--I’s.o\'isio:v roa FL"l‘\.'itE Rear.

This was the further consideration of an action by a lagatce for the administration of the estate of a testator who had carried on business in partnership. The chief clerk had found by his certificate the amounts of the tcstatoi-‘s separate debts and partnership debts. The plaintiff asked for leave to serve the testator’s surviving partner with notice of the order, under rule 40 of order 16, with a view of binding him by the proceedings in the action, and asked that the payment of the partnership debts out of the assets might be meanwhile postponed. Norma, J ., refused the application. He held that the surviving partner was not “ a person interested in the estate,” and that rule 40 did not apply.

Another question arose thus. The landlord of a colliory, a lease of which had been granted to the testator and his partners, had carried in ii claim for future rent. The chief clerk found that the rent had been paid up to the lst of January, 1886. The landlord took out a summons for the admission of his claim, and he asked that a note of his claim might be made in the order on further consideration. Noiii-ii, J., directed that the order should contain a note that, all rent and liabilities under the lease having been paid and discharged up to the lst of January, 1886, the executors not asking to have any part of the assets appropriated, the court did not think fit to make such an appropriat.ion.—Uoi"assi., C'u:sns— Hardg/, Q.C., and W6!/in-1/1:/id, Eccritt, Q.U., and II. 11';/re ; Uoakson, Q,.C., and -\'v'lL‘u»‘d Brice ; i’lLv,-v_z/; I:/ylw Joyrv. SoLici'i'oas, Wright Q Wriyhl ,0. L. 1’. Eyre Q C0. ,' 'l'orr Q F0. ; Few Q 6'0.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The question in_ this case was as to the construction of an appointment by will to a married woman, which purported to be subject to a restraint upon anticipation. The testator had, under a settlement, a testamentary power to appoint certain funds among his children. By his will he appointed ccrtaiu specific sums, and directed that the residue “of the said money or investments" should, as to ons- fourth part thereof, be held _‘ upon trust for my daughter F. absolutely, for her sole and separate use,_ independently of marital control, and without power of anticipation during any coverture." The daughter was now married. It was contende , on her behalf, that, there eing an absolute appointment to her, the restraint on anticipation was inconsistent with that gift, and that she was, therefore, entitled to have the capital paid over to her at once. N on-i-ii, J., held that she was not entitled to immediate aymcnt, but that during coverture only the income of the fund could) be paid to her, founding his decision on the fact that the trustees were directed to hold (mt §° PB!) the share appointed to 1181'.-—-COL'Ns‘lL, Siadm; Vmrylwn Haw]-'m-v. bouciroas, lay-1w,” ,- 77,-,'_,,),¢ 6- 1»;;/,y,

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

said that when an account hzid been stated by two persons of a s ific sum in terms as owed by the one to the other, there was no doubt im that account formed a good subject-mutter for the consideration of a court within the jurisdiction of which it had been stated. The contention that after execution and satisfaction a prohibition might be issued appeared to be founded on s dictum of Lord Coke, but had not any decided case to support it. Wiien the whole matter of_ an action is at an end the court oug not, by sufiering a writ of prohibition to issue, to make s ‘ declaration upon which future proceedings against the successful party might be founded. MANlST\',_ J., concurred, and said that, whatever might be the case in an apphcation made bya stranger to an action to restrain s. court from exceeding its jurisdiction, a party could not get such a writ when the proceedings were finally concluded and there was nothing to prohibit. It might be that where the interests of the public or the Crown were concerned the court would take such a step, though even then it had a discretion in the matter, but the present application was not one of that character. S-rarnisrr, J., concurred.—Coi:xssL, B. Vauylmn Williams; Kamp, Q.O. and Vmnsll. leloticrroas, F. Bu,-shell; Ranger Q Jlurlon.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

This was an application for the recovery of land under the provisions of ord. 3 r. 6, and order 14. The tenant of certain premises used for warehousing furniture mortgaged them by demise. The mortgage deed contained ii clause that “ for the purpose of better securing the punctual payment of the interest on the said principal sum, the mortgagor attorns enant to the mortgagee" at a yearly rent. It was also provided that the mortgagee might, at any time after a certain date, enter into or upon the prem s and determine the tenancy thereby created without giving to the mortgagor any notice to quit. It was agued for the defence that the attornment clause was void as being in e ect an unregistered bill of sale, and that section 6 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, included such a deed, the mortgagee never having been in actual possession. It was also contended that ord. 3, r. 6, did not igply to a demise such as this, which had been terminated by the landlo for non-payment of the rent, since relief might be obtained against the forfeiture. Tue Corn-r (Lord l Coisainos, O.J.,MANI5TY and Sreri-iziw, JJ.) held. that order 14 was ‘ ‘Pains ':.:‘.:“"‘=:: '* Li“ i’z"'::-"":= °-1» sai n case es wasa l ,an uness eojscionso the instrument succeeded there was no reason why judgment should not ‘ be given against the defendant. The Bills of Bale Acts did not include :1:-la an t|;s.i>r&mm<ini€_as thfaii indphisi deaf.“ Certtain Eight! werizgttachedtlgy e aw e rs a ion o an or an nan an among em was e right under certain limitations to seize all prhpsrty on tliie demised premises. Such properly could not be brought into a so edule. If this deed were to be held to be a. bill of salelgvay leafieuunideralwhsh a of distress asses to the landlord wou a i 0 s o so. it reference topihe other contention, that ord. 3, r. 6, did not refer to such a case as the present, his lordship added that Dsubu: v. Larington (32 W. R. T72) was authority to shew that where a landlord had determined a financy at will by a notice to quit and entry, as in the plresepia procizledings, ewas titl d to at in force the provisions of t e o er. ANISTY and B1-s?=:ss,eJJ., 0i?Il¢llI!6d.—oOl‘l\'SBL, D. Walker ; lavas/tic. Soiiciroiis, Gcdgr, Kirby, 5- llillatt ,' Wood, Bird, Q 6'0.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

This was an application on behalf of Sir Hector ltlaclean Iiay, for a rule uiai in the nature of a mandamus culling upon Mr. H. Curtis Bennett, a metropolitan police magistrate, to shew why he should not state a case raising aquesiion of law for the decision 0 this court. The applicant was summoned at the Wsndsworth Police-court for having acte in conlraventlon of an order made in ursusnoe of section 8 of the Dogs Act, 1871, in having allowed a dog belbnging to him to have been in or upon a certain thoroughfare when not under the control of himself or any other person. Mr. Curtis Bennett was of opinion that, as it had been proved that the dog had neither been niuzzled nor led, this was practically conclusive that it had not been under proper control at the time, and he fined the defendant 3s. and 2s. costs. He, however, expressed his willingness to slate a case upon the point for the decision of this court, but when a draft case had been submitted to him he fllld refused to sign it, on the ground that the question raised by it was one of law. The draft case, so tar as material, was as follows -—“ Upon the hearing of the said information a police constable of the metropolitan police, who was called on behalf oi the respondent, proved that on the 26th day of Sept/ember aforesaid, the appellant was seen in a public thoroughfare, to wit the Upper Richmond-rcad, in the district of the said Wandsworth Police-court, accompanied by a dog, which said dog was neither muzzled nor led. The appellant appeared in person and adduced no evidence in contradiction of the evidence in paragraph 4 hereof mentioned. The appellant contended that the dog might have been, and, in fact, was under his control, although it was neither muzzled nor led. I was of opinion and ruled, as a matter of law, that no dog not being either muzzled or led was, or could be, under the control of any person within the meaning of the said order, and I accordingly convicted the appellant and imposed ii fine of 3s. and 2s. costs as in paragraph 1 hereof appears. The question of law arising upon this case for the opinion of the court is, whether upon the facts

[graphic]

proved or admitted I, the said magistrate, came to a correct decision in,

[ocr errors]

point of law." Tun Cor-ur refused the application. Loan Coranrnon, (..J., said that the magistrate might have used the expression that he should 110141. M ll mime! Pf law, that the defendant's dog had not been under control, when he might well have meant so to hold only as a matter of_fact. The control over the dog must be so effective as to prevent the mischief at which the statute aimed, and, in the absence of very positive evidence to the contrary, the fact that a dog had neither been inuzzled nor led was sulficicnt to_prove that it had not been under proper control. MANISTY, J ., lll. concurring said that, in his opinion, the question as to whether ‘o_r not s dog won d_be under control must be one of fact only for the decision of the_ magistrate. Srsruan, J ., concurred.-Couxvsai., (Jnmiy. Bouciroas, I'll! 5- Savage.

[ocr errors]

A_. point, as to which some doubt has existed in the profession, as to the validity of a committal by a county court judge for past default, and a direction that the warrant thereunder should not issue so long as monthly mstalments are duly paid, was decided in this case. There is no doubt as to the desirability of the order and direction in question, which, generally speaking, ls made with the consent of both the plaintiff creditor and the defendant debtor and greatly lessens the number of im risonments. Such orders have been made and directions given by nearly all) the judges of county courts for many years past. Counsel for the lié)I)1lCBl1t contended that Judge Stonor, the jludge of the Brompton ounty Court, should beprohibited from proceed g further on an order of committal dated the 4th o March last. He said that since it was made two instalments had been paid by the defendant, and though instalments were now in arrear, the order should not be enforced. Counsel for the county court judge contended that the order was valid. On the 4th of March, when the order of committal was made the judge was satisfied by evidence that the debtor had had, since the date of the judgment, the means to pay, and had neglected to pay. This was all that is required by section o of the Debtors Act, 1869. The couniiy court judge should not therefore be prohibited. POLLOCK, l3., said:— t is admitted that the county court judge, at the time he made the committal order, was satisfied t at the debtor had had the means to pay since the date of the judgment, and was then in contempt. The order of committal and directions were perfectly proper. The order of committal for ten days was in respect of the defendant's past default, but the judge directed his officer (the registrar) not to issue the warrant so long as £4 a month was paid ; that was no part of the order, but was a direction that the judge gave to the oiliicer of the court, similar tothe directions given in the High Court on coinmittals, that the warrant should lie in the ofiice for a time. I am well acquainted with the form which is used in the Bromptcn County Court, where I have sometimes sates deputy-judge, and it is right. The summons for a prohibition agsinst the judge must be dismissed, with costs, and, as the registrar was served, and the judge of the county court thought it of sufficient importance to be represented by counsel, certificate for counsel will be granted.—Cov:rcsei., R. WEI’/7€B,' Lynch; Coopn Wyld.

[merged small][ocr errors]

This interple ader action was to test the validiéy of a bill of sale given by the defendant in the original action (Robert K illiams) to John Jones, t e claimant, whereby the scheduled goods were assigned to secure the payment of £50. The high bailiff had seized and so d a portion of the goods assigned under a judgment against Robert \Villiams for £21 at the suit of W. Clwyd Pierce, and the latter claimed the proceeds of the sale in satisfaction of his judgment; John Jones claimed the proceeds under u. bill of sale granted by the defendant, Robert Williams, to 11l'D to secure the re ayment of £50 and interest at five per cent. er annum as stated. The bill of sale was dated the 25th of May, 1886 aha date of the judgment), and was expressed to be made in consideration of £50 " now paid to the said Robert Williams by the said John Jones"; the receipt was acknowledged; and it assigned unto the present claimant the scheduled goods (according to the statutory form), “and also all and singular the growing crops specifically descri ed (it being tlu ivztelilioil of the plZ!'l|'t‘-\'_l/Iii! when grown and ready la _r/atlier in t/my shall bs .-mired, then/1y cominy In!/mi the proi'i'n'ons nf.<rm'0n 7 of the Jlills of Ruhr Act, 1878)." The deed then continued in the statutory form, and the time for payment of the £50 was stated as tho “ 26!): day ofllfny, 1886," the day following the dale of its execution. Certain of the goods scheduled w_ere not enumerated, but were classified as “ Flowers in glass cases, cooking utensils, set of fancy vessels, brushes, knives and forks, thirty-one farming tools. harness and

ear, tenant's fixtures in stables and house, &c., &c. Poultry, hens, ducks, chickens, ducklings." The growing crops were scheduled. _For the execution creditor it was contended that the bill of sale was void in iota, and the following cases were cited :—Dim'e.i v. Burton (32 W. It._423, 11 Q. D. D. 537), Iletheringfon V. Groom: (33 W. R. 103, 13 Q. B. D. I89), Roberts v. Robrrls (32 \V. R. 605), Ra IVi!lu//n.~, Ea):/zrtu P211/‘('2 (32 W- R187, 25 Ch. D. 656), Defies V. Rns (3-l W. R. 573, ll Q. B. D. 403), R-t]I_I1rl¢ Stanford (34 \V. R. 507, 17 Q. B. D. 259). Juiios lion/lrio LLo\'D, Q,.C., ill R written judgment, said :—After careful consideration of the points 1‘i1lECd ns to the invalidity of the bill of sale, I have come to the conc usion that_I cannot declare it void on _either. of thejgcunds. I do not think that it contains any covenant so inconsistent wit the Act and form that it cililn be impeached on that account, nor do I think that the merc fact that t e time of payment is fixed at so early a date as the day following the execu

[graphic]

tion of the bill is of itself sufficient to avoid it. In Re Williams, Er pair! Prarce, the time was “forthwith, or when and so soon as the _grfl-nlieo should think fit," and power was also given to relinquish possession and resume it again so often as the grantee chooses. In the present case also there is no question of “capitalized interest” or other circumstances which existed in Davies v. Burton and other cases. Upon the whole I do not think there is suilicient reason for impeaching the bill of sale. I must, therefore give jfiidgment foi the claimant. The case was not_ so clear as not to justify ‘ligation, and therefore I do not give costs against the execution creditor, and I think the claimant should bear_tho costof the hearing fee and possession money. Judgment accordingly.—hor claimant, lllvlleulm Douglas, Barrister. For execution creditor, Solomon (Denbigh).

[merged small][ocr errors]

This was an appeal from the refusal of the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster (M1. Bristowe, Q,.C.) to review the taxation of the plaintiffs‘ costs of the action. On a prior appeal to this court on the merits of the action the plaintifis succeeded, an the defendants were ordered to pay cosis. There were two questions on the present occasion-— (1) the costs of copies of certain correspondence; (2) the amounts of the refresher fees Wl1lCl1 the registrar had allowed to the plaintiffs’ counsel. The main question in the action was as to a commission added by the defendants to the sums due to them from the plaintiffs in the course of dealings between the parties in cotton goods. The plaintiffs were merchants in Mexico, but one of the partners in their firm resided generally in Paris. The defendants carried on business in Manchester. A large mass of

corresppndence between the plaintiffs inter u and between the defendants infer se ad been used as evidence in the case, the defendants seeking to shew from the plaintiffs’ correspondence that they were aware of the commission with which the defendants were in the habit of char ‘n; them. For the purposes of the trial the correspondence, which haifl been conducted in French, was translated into English, and copies of the ori 'nals and of the translations were furnished to counsel. The registrar hag‘ allowed the costs of the copies in both languages. The registrar had also allowed to the three counsel respectively emp o ed by the plaintiffs refresher fees of twenty, fifteen, and ten guineas a day. The defendants contended that the rule of the High Court, limiting refreshers to a maximum of ten guineas a day, ought to be a plied in the Palatine Court. The plaiutifls insisted that, undcr the rulizs of the Palatine Court, the quantum of refreshers is left in the discretion of the registrar, who is the taxing officer in that court. Tm: Counr or APPEAL (Corrox, Bowax, and Fin, L.JJ.) atlirmed the taxation. Co-ri-on, L. J ., said that the registrar had considered that there was reasonable ground for furnishing copies of the correspondence in both French and English. The Vice-Chancellor had taken the same view, and, though only a small number of the very numerous letters had been actually used, still this court could not see that the decision was clearly wrong, and therefore could not differ from the taxing ofiicer and the Vice-Chancellor. There was more doubt as to the copies in French than as to those in English. If the documents had only been wanted for the purposes of the argument in court, or to shew the course of the correspondence, the English copies would have been sufilcient, and if questions arose between the interpreters on the oral evidence as to the letters, then the originals would have been sufflcient. The writers of the letters had, however, been examined in court through interpreters, and frequent references had been made to the French copies, and as the taxing ofllcer and the Vice-Chancellor had thought that in this particular case it was reasonable to supply those copies, the Court of Appeal could not diifer from the decision. Though the letters between the defendants were not used at the trial, yet the case was to be tried with oral evidence, and there was a conflict as to the nature of the agreement between the parties and their knowledge of what had been done. It was therefore reasonable to have the copies in readiness. With regard to the refreshers it had been urged that the rules of the Palatine Court provided that, where they did not fully and adequately provide in any particular with regard to procedure and practice, the practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court was to be followed. Therefore it was contended that the rule of the High Court as to refreshers must apply. In the Palatine Court there were two sets of rules—-one, made by the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Vice-Chancellor, with the advice of one of the Lords Justices of Appeal, dealt with practice and procedure; the other, relating to costs and fees, were made by the Chancellor, with the advice of the ViceChancellor. Rule 19 of the latter set provided that, “as to all fees 0|allowances which are discretionary, the same are, unless otherwise pro. vided, to be allowed at the discretion of the taxing officer." In his lordship's opinion the amount of the refreshers was in the discretion of the taxing ofiicer, and this court ought not to interfere. Bower: L.J. concurred, after some hesitation, and though he desired to day nothing against the ability of the taxing otficers of local courts, it was very important that those oillcers should keep a firm hand over coats and fee; an that the courts should exercise vigilance to see that a lax practice did not grow up. The ofiieers of the local courts necessarily had less QXPQII. euce in these matters than the taxing masters in London. With regard to the copies in French he had doubts, because he was afraid that the registrar had taken the correspondence wholesale, instead of conslderin whether the solicitor had applied his mind to the particular letters 5 which both French and Bag h copies might be necessary. In general the practice would be to ow copies only in one language. If he had

[graphic]

had to decide the question alone he should have formed ii different Judgment. Far, L.J., said that there must be a strong case to Justify copies in more than one language. The present decision would la! d°'nhP° general rule. It was permissible to allow them, but_only in a pecu er case. As to the refres ers, he would have been glad if the registrar, in exercising his discretion, had followed the rule of the Supreme curt, biit the question was one of quantum only, and was clearly in the registrar s discretion, and it was not for the of Appeal our such a point to interfere with the decision of the registrar and o the X ice-Chancellor.COI.'.\‘SBL, Ambrose, Q.C., and Hopkin-son; 0. Leigh Clare and S. HI" ; 77- BFeryuson. Soiicirons, Phelps, Sidgicick, 4- Biddle ; Cunlija Q Davenport.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

A solicitor employed by the plaintifi in an action and discharged before trial obtained a charging order, under 23 24 Vict. c. 127, for his costs, charging them upon a sum of money ultimately recovered by the plaintiff in the action, the judge holding that the services of the first solicitor had been instrumental to the successful result._ This order was made subject to the lien of the second solicitors for their costs (33 \V. 558, 29 Ch. D. 517). Upon this summons, which sought to vaiz the chief clerk's certificate and to deal with the funds, the ischarge _E0llCliDl', who had been served, asked to have his costs paid pun passu with those of the solicitors who had acted for the plaintifi down to, and at the time of, the trial. KAY, J ., held, following Corniark v. Beisly (3 De G. &_J. 157), that the costs of the solicitors who acted at the time of the trial must be (paid in priority to those of the applicant.—Coonsai., Hmtmys, Q,.C., an Rmshaw ; Wliittakfl; W. Pearson and 0n0ald._ Boniciroiis, Jriques, Layton, Q Jaquss; W. Easton, for W. Durnfard, Halifax; Sawell 4Edwards, for J. E. Q E. H. He'll, Halifax.

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

This was a sitting for taxation of the bill of Mr. Enoch \Valker, the returning oflicer of the borough of Shoreditch at the late general election, at the instance of Mr. Germaine, one of the candidates. The bill as delivered was divided into two sections under the heads of “returning oificer’s charges" and “all other expenses as per vouchers," and objection was taken to the whole of the items in the first of these for which no vouchers were given. For Mr. Germaine it was contended that the returning omcer had, in each instance, charged the maximum allowed by the Act, while the Act says that “the charges are in no case to exceed the sums actually and necessarily paid or payable," and that the returning ofllcer was only entitled to such sums as he had really expended, and for which he could shew vouchers. For the returning oillcer, it was argued that the amounts mentioned in the schedule to the Act were scale fees allowed for the remuneration of the returning ofilcer, and he refused upon principle to produce vouchers for any of these items. After a very long cussion on the principal items objected to, the Rsoisriuiu (llr. Essie) stated that he would reserve judgment, at the same time intimating that he did not think the Act intended the returnin ofilcer to make a profit out of the election charges. He has since taxeg a sum of £54 off Mr. \Valker's bill of £175 19s. 6d.—For the candidate, II. W. Chaim-ton. For the returning ofiicer, Hedderwii-k (barrister), instructed by Mills, Lock;/av“, §- MilIs.—Ti'mcs.

[graphic]

On lilonday evening the members of the Surrey Sessions Bar Mess entertained the Solicitor-General_at a complimentary dinner at Willis'srooms, hing-street, _St. James’s, in_ celebration of his recent appointment. The chair was occupied by Mr. Sergeant Robinson.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

86 THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL 3;

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]

MR. JUSTICE CAVE AND MR. HIGGIN, Q.C.

Ma. HIGGIN, Q.C., chairman of the Salford Quarter Sessions, recently abandoned the business of the sessions, leaving thirty-one prisoners to be tried at tho assizes. In doing so he spoke strongly of the arrangements made by the glpgges for holding assizes, allowing the sessions and assizes to clash. He her stated that it would be a breach of decorum to have courts sitting together. In charging the grand jury at the Manchester Assizes on the 29th iilt. Mr. Justice Cave said :—“ I must take notice of certainly what in my experience is a totally unprecedented circumstance and that is that at the sitting of the Salford Quarter Sessions, which I believe took plaoe on Monday last, the chairman seems to have gone out of his wayto niake an attack upon her Majesty's judges. In all my experience, now extending over, I am sorry to say, as barrister and as judge, a great many years, I have never known such a case to take place before. I could hardly have believed it possible that such a thing could have been done but I have had laid before me an extract from one of the local newspaper; detailing the circumstances. N ow the learned chairman of quarter sesgiong is reported to have stated that there would be a number of cases which of necessity would have to be handed over to the judge of assize to try and it appears that there are no fewer than thirty-one of those cases which undoubtedly ought to have been disposed of at the quarter sessiohs and which have been sent here from the quarter sessions at considerably increased expense to the county, and no doubt very considerable inconvenience to the parties who are witnesses in those cases. The learned chairman is reported to have said that “ if the authorities who fixed the commission day did not choose to consult the chairman of these sessions or the clerk of the peace as to when it was likely the sessions would be finished, and if the _Bl.1tl10l’lfil68 fix the commission day when it is absolutely certain the sessions will not be finished, i_t is not the fault of the authorities of Manchester that a clashing of this kind should take place. If they would coudescend to make inquiry they would receive sufiicient information to prevent for the future the clashing of these two courts." Now I must say regret extremely that the chairman should have indulged in language of that kind, which applieiz, and must only apply, to her Maj esty’s judges of assize. It is her Majesty s judges of assiiie who the time for holding the assises. At the winter and summer assizes that is done at a meeting of all the judges, and I can assui-_e you that a very great deal of trouble is taken and _a very great deal of ti_me_ spent endeavouring to fix the date of holding the assizes so as to inflict the minimum of inconvenience on those who have to be brought there; and, so far as my experience undoubtedly gxtends, whenever there has been any reason suppose that there might _ e a clashing between the sessions and the assizes, which is very difificult indeed to prevent in the month of July, because on some cii-ciiits—-not on llm=—judges are compelled to begin very early indeed, the chairman of qflflrtcr sessions takes care to commimicate, directly or indirectly, with tile judge of assizs and to call his attention—_for he is necessarily ignorant ph th1ose_matters—to any possible inconvenience that may be caused by I le c ashmg of the sessions and the assizes. Now it so happens that, though h ave been on the bench nearly six years, I have never yet been to Manphester at this time of the year, and consequently I was quite unaware of e_day fixed for holdmg the Saliord Quarter Sessions. All I knew of the Bgblect was that the first day upon which the sessions could be held was t o 18th of October. was necessarily also entirely unaware of the Probable number of_ pnsoners that would be brought to trial at these ‘e“°}°11§, and it certainly does seem to me that if the chairman of quarter sessions had really desired that this clashing should not take place, nothing would have been m_ore simple than that he, who was aware of all these 11]:m7@",_Bh°Il1d Write me, who was necessarily ignorant of them, and 9l°I11d give me some little warning of what might be expected to take P B-cc unless some change were made in the ordinary date of holding the pssizes. Now the judges in holding the assizes adhere to certain fixed iuées. They do not, as is frequently the case with the recorders of cities gut boroughs, for instance, fix those times to suit their own convenience, ll they adhere to certain fixed times which are prescribed for them by Custom, and although they undoubtedly have power to alter those times, Y 831 “Peaking for myself~and I think I may speak for the rest of the Ju_ 895 B|80—t_hey would hardly think of doing that to suit their own Pglglpte convenience, although fully prepared to do so to suit the convenience E ° P115110; and had I known that there was any likelihood whatever of filly gent public inconvenience arising by the assizes being fixed at the 0:16 ey were fixed, I_certainly would have deferred them for three days, thaetvsfii for ii week had it been necessary; and I certainly very much regret d _e learned chairman of quarter sessions, instead of addressing to the gig" Jul‘! from this seat a public reprobation of her Majesty’s judges, ml 'l;0l2 think fit to communicate with me directly or indirectly. and warn 28*: 1;? What the consequences might be of holding the assizes as early as the six Oflgctober. The time of_ho1ding the assizes was fixed some five or mnwee !_8go : but although it was fixed as far back as that there was ca 11015111113 which would (prevent me from altering that date for good c use 5 ewn to me, and ha [ received any intimation whatever from the alhfllfmtemtian of quarter sessions I certainly would have had the necessary Ma. t0I1- Bo far from this being any personal convenience to her co J65 Y 8 judges of a_ssize to come here to-day, on the contrary, they have m ma at Cfllislderable inconvenience. I cannot refrain also from expressing ,h{u1l'{°%T9i, If it is true, as I am informed it is, that the chairman did not the 1 i $0 Continue sitting yesterday. Now I gather the ground on which an Chairman puts it is that it “ would be a breach of decorum and Same tmde°e11°Y for the court of quarter sessions to be sitting at the b ff" 118 the assizes." I don't myself quite understand what is meant uidall act of indecency” and a “ breach of decorum." I have generally e"t°°dtl1&i7ll7l81.I1COD.Y611l9l1h for both courts to be sitting at once,

[ocr errors]

because witnesses and others engaged in one court may be required in the other at the same time; but what indecency or what want of decorum there could be in the learned chairman of quarter sessions sitting yesterday I cannot for the life of me conceive. I arrived in the city of Manchester at six o’clock in the evening, and the commission was not opened at all on that evening; you yourselves have just heard it opened by the clerk of assize ; and I certainly do regret that while the learned chairman was so extremely anxious to avoid indeooium and indecency by sitting upon a day when he could not by any possibility have interferred with the court of assize, it did not strike him that there was something which might possibly be said on the ground of decency and decorum in favour of not holding up from this seat her Maj esty’s judges to public reprobation.

[graphic]

THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW IN INDIA.

Sis. WILLIAM Mum delivered an address on this subject on Monday at Edinburgh in which he said (we quote from the Scotsman) that Warren Hastings, in 1780, laid down the rule that in all matters regarding inheritance, niari-lag‘ e, caste, and other reli 'ous usages, the laws of the Koran should be administered with rciipect to the Moliammedans, those of the Shastas with respect to Hindoos; and where the parties were of different creeds, by the laws of the defendant. For the other classes there was no other legislative provision than that the law should be administered with justice and equity and good conscience. This rule continued to be long observed. Fifty years ago a Royal commission was appointed to promulgate a universal code, but it was only in 1862 that a penal code was enacted with a universal applicatiou. There had also been further steps in the same direction, among which he mentioned the enactment of laws of contract, twenty years ago, in which the principle of limited liability was largely recognized; the separate and independent rights in certain cases of married women, to a greater extent, indeed, than he had himself considered at the time expedient. Regulations of wills and testaments had been enacted; but in these, as in other matters, large exceptions were necessary with respect to the usages of certain classes. It would thus be seen that a large code of territorial law affecting large classes of subjects in India could be looked forward to eventually. Exceptions, however, must remain, especially in case of the Hindoos and Mohammedans, which constituted the

the
vast majority of the nation. In one main feature the Mohammedan
and the Hindoo agreed—namely, that their law was based upon

Divine sanction. The law was bound up in the religion, and consequently it was of n personal, not of a territorial nature, and followed the individual wherever he went. The Mohammedan law was intolerant of interference, and novelty or change was absolutely impossible. The Hindoo system differed in that respect. In many important points it had been materially influenced by British administration, the ten ency of which had been towards the disintegration of the family and the larger recognition of the individual; so also in regard to the matters of romarriage and widowhood. It had likewise suffered modification under the action of the British law courts; in other words it was largely indebted to case-made law. Divine as the law pretended to be, it had in course of time received many modifications, and acorresponding variety of interpretation was put upon its clauses. In this way diverse schools of ' l had arisen flourishing in different centres. But

Hindoo aw , as the Hindoo law was personal, and not territorial, a Hindoo passing from ' '0 s of his law along with him,

one province to another carried the provisi n _ and was judged according to them, so that adherents of the diverse schools might be found side by side in the sonic locality. To add to the complexity of the subject-matter there were the sub-divisions and castes, especially the four great castes into which society was divided. Each of these had its own usages and rights to which it clung tenaciously, and in accordance with which it was entitled to have its civil causes heard and determined. Tuming next to the Mohammedan law, Sir William Muir noticed the absence of the recognition of anything like the Hindoo family unit, by which the household was maintained. Among the Hindoos the sinking of the individual in the family had no doubt tended to _reta_rd the progress of society, but it had also tended to make domestic life far sounder and healthier than the Moslem, and the same might be said of the marriage tie and the nearer approach to monogamy among the Hindoos. Scattered through the Koran, which was the great foundation of Moslem law, were the rules and instructions which Mohammad had issued from time to time for the guidance of his followers. Consequently the code was not laid down according to any systematic plan, nor did it state any general or abstract principle capable of extension to other lands or ages. And hence, when the Arabs had imposed their dominion and their creed over highly civilized nations, these rules which had suited their sim le habits had to be widened to meet the new demands. The laws oi) inheritance, of marriage, and divorce were laid down in the Koran, and must be maintained at all hazard as matters of Divine inspiration ; but, in matters not irrevocably settled, reference was had to the sayings and doings of the prophet, a vast system founded on tradition sprang up, delivered at first orally, 8l.'l(1 afterwards committed to writing. These traditions depended upon independent chains of witnesses, which found different degrees of credence with different schools. Of_ these four orthodox schools sprang up, besides the Shiah school which rejected the first three Caliplis and acknowleged only tho fourth» A11 i"1d_h1§ d°5' cendants, mid the tradition proceeding from them. The majority of British subjects were of the orthodox schools, Q1611‘ Pyflliellli "fie; whole, was founded on principles of reason and justice. It presen_

certain peculiarities, such as the enactment that no more than one-thlrd

[graphic]

of a property could be bequeathed by law, and the criminal code was i some respects barbarous, but it was no longer enforced, ifit ever was, in its severer aspects under British rule. While endeavour was made to suplply India with a territorial law of universal application, attention was not esl given to special legislation for individual classes and tribes wherever the law required amelioration or amendment.

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

Mn. J us-rice Srsriisx contributed an article on this subject to the October number of the Mrzetemlh C'vntur_i/, in which he says :—I have gained much experience on this matter since the Criminal Law Amendment Act came into force in the autumn of last year. Since that time I have tried a great many cases in which prisoners were competent witnesses. In most of these cases, though not in all, they were called, and I have thus had the opportunity of seeing how the system works in actual practice. My ex perience has confirmed and strengthened the opinion upon the subject which I have held for many years and maintained on various occasions, that the examination of prisoners as witnesses, or at least their competency, is favourable in the highest degree to the administration of justice. . . The principal object of this paper is to shew by illustrations taken from actual experience that the value of the evidence given by prisoners is exactly like the value of the evidence given by other witnesses, and that, though their interest in the result must always be taken into account, and is in many cases so important as to destroy altogether the value of their evidence, there are also many cases in which it is of great and even decisiva importance. . . . I will begin with cases which appear to me to illustrate the doctrine that the evidence of prisoners may often be unimportant. A man was indicted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act for the seduction of a girl under sixteen. About the facts there was no dispute, but the prisoner was defended on the ground that he believed the gir to beof the age of seventeen. She admitted that she had told him sho was seventeen. His counsel said that he should not call the prisoner. He would of course say, if he were called, that he believed the girl; but as this would be merely his own statement as to his own state of mind it would add nothing to the case. His evidence would thus be superfluous. The jury acquitted the prisoner, seeing no reason to doubt that the girl had made the statement and probably regardin her a

[ocr errors]

_ e prisoner s evidence was sure to be given if asked for, whether it was true or false, and was therefore worthless. This case is a typical one, and suggests a general principle which may be illustrated in many ways as to the value of the evidence of prisoners and of interested witnesses. It is, that the evidence of a doe ly interested witness given on the side which his interest would incline him to give it is of 116 value when the circumstances are such that he cannot be contradicted on the subject-matter of his evidence. This principle is of very general application, and reaches its height when the matter to which the prisoner tcstifies is a fact passing in his own mind, such as knowledge, belief intention or good aith. . . . Though the evidence of an accused person on A point in which he is interested and cannot be contradicted ought to be regarded as worthless in the way of proving his innocence the abgenqq of such evidence may, under particular circumstances go fair to prove his guilt ; for it is a fact, and a very strange one, that criminals will now and then shrink from denying the commission of crimes from the actual commission of which they have not shrunk. The working of the Criminal Law Amend. ment Act has furnished very curious illustrations of this A irl swore that her master committed an offence upon her in his shop ands that im mediately afterwards he suggested to a friend who came into the sho th he should do the same. The friend persuaded the girl (so she said) ‘to ac with him to his house to get some grapes, and when 11¢ Qt thfre c B. initted the same offence. That the girl had gbne to her gmaster‘ , lfm that his friend had come in and had persuaded her to o to hiss :1 lm, '¢° Bet BTBPQI. was clearly proved ; but the commission of Ehe two off 0 we rested upon her testimony, which was in itself open to man ob scfinws Bh°W1118- W I87 the lent. Emit inaccuracy and confusion asyto ti mud place, and being in several particulars intrinsically im robsbl mil; at: master's friend had sworn to his innocence and had saidpthat lfth t h e passed between him and the girl was that he took her to h'a h l ad §“° 11" “"119 8|fl5. and that the rest of her sto was fill ml hind e would have been acquitted; but he refused to bgycall cl He’ ‘t nk The jury convicted him, I suppose considerin it 8' “(ii-i,mme“' a man falsely accused of such an odious crimegsh more I 19 thqt upon his oath when he had the o portunity The ‘ la“ not deny It evidence. He swore that the girlie story was totafiu fs Imam! did Ewe his having committed the crime. The girl he s ‘dy huge M regarded his sho (which was some distance from his hou M ' 8 bun sent to hadi age: a short interval and some joking witl:el)ii:nfrl!e1:ii‘lar:val?<:i’ci;ili]ig in, eft it in the friend's - - . greatly dissatisfied with thecg);-Jllgsa 1Q‘!ldEIlSGheT§‘l‘ll: yWRa8c?€€t:';dBlllJé|lJ111liIbelng t c early shews that in the class of cases under 1 ' cum persona Wm‘ it the law is altered have to swear to gins deration accused the facts of the case are undlsplfed or else b wk eir innocence, unless have confessed their guilt. Oases sometim 6 etaand not unlumyto of a prisoner is useless because it is out of iii occur m which the “mange dence which would B power 81" the °n]y °"‘ The quemon w8saalt>::1<;?l§e1:‘l;;ftl’Jitl;ii(:';.th: man was indicted for a rape. of the proaecutrix was highly unsatiBfMtPr1sonel', as to which the account The prisoner was 8 soldier The to“ tory, or at least very doubtful. “I9 bfimlcks soon after the crimep sll§vll:;Tbl::(?(,l.ll|ll8!nt0‘v irtlgfiltigen ad ve ' - ' . 811 ° “ deniedi °11e "me, though at the trial she spoke to it

with the utmost confidence, giving reasons for her previous mistakes. On
this evidence, had it stood alone, the man must have been acriluitted.
The woman had, however, been robbed of a purse containing t ree or
, four ooins, which she speci1‘icd—one being a half-sovereign, kept in a small
i compartment of the purse with a separate clasp. It was proved that im-
mediately after the commission of the offence the prisoner was at a public-
house, in which he saw an amber mouthpiece for cigars. He bought it
from the landlord after some talk, in the course of which he displayed a
purse exactly corresponding to the description of her purse given by the
, prosecutrix, not only inits shape, colour, and material, but in the coins
it contained, and the way they were distributed in it. The prisoner said
nothing of the purse, and did not produce it. This caused his conviction.
He was not called as a witness, and there would have been no use in
calling him if he had not been able to produce a purse like the one seen
b the publioan but different from the one stolen from the prosecutrix.
This was an instructive case in another way. If it had not been for the
purse, the prisoner would probably have been acquitted on account of the
weakness of the evidence of the rosecutrix, and his evidence would have
been immaterial even if hers had) been stronger. He was unquestionably
near the place at the time of the crime, and had not more than perhaps a
quarter of an hour to account for. If he had sworn that he was
lounging about the streets (as he had been just before) for this quarter of
an hour, and did not commit the crime, his evidence would, for reasons
already given, have made no difference. It may seem to be paradoxical
to say so, but it is nevertheless true that the class of accused persons who
will get least advantage from having their mouths opened are those who
are entirely innocent of and unconnected with the crime of which they are
charged-—people who have nothing to conceal and nothing to explain.
The only way in which the most innocent man can prove his innocence of
acrime, of which hc knows nothing whatever, is by proving (as by an
ah/ii) that it was physically impossible that he should commit the crime;
this iii many cases he would be able to do only by his uucorroboroted as-
sertion. “ I was sitting quietly writing letters in my library at the time
when you say I was committing a crime" would in many cases be all u man
could say, and of such a statement he might have no corroboration what-
ever, and he might well have the means of leaving the room undiscovered.
If, however, there is a possibility of corroboration, the fact that a man can
supply, so to speak. the threads on which the corroborating facts are
strung may bc of the greatest iinportaiice. It must never be forgotten in
connection with this subject that there are differences between ople
who tell the truth and people who lie, which it is not easy to speoigf but
which are none the less marked and real. I have known cases in which
a jury hasacquitted merely upon hearing an accused person tell his tale,
and m which I felt perfectly confident they were right. A girl, between
thirteen and sixteen, prosecuted a hawker for an offence against her
under the Act of 1885. Ile had no counsel, and he did not much cross-
examine her, but he gave his own account of the matter in a way which
led the j_ury to stop the case and declare that they did not believe a word
of the g_irl's story. Theoretically, the two stories were no more than an
affirmation on the one side and a contradiction on the other. Tho girl
affirmed that the man had committed the offence, and that he had, when
charged by her and her mother, sdmitted it ; and the mother corroborated
her daughter as to the last assertion. The man denied the offence and

said (and in this his wife confirmed him) that when the girl came th his

house he threatened to kick her out and prosecute her. More particularly, the girl declared that o '

_ ii a particular day and at a particular place the man_ called her _into the house and committed the offence. The man gave a minute (l€8Cl‘l%i:l0l1 of where he was and what he was doing on the day iii question, of is having met the girl and scolded or, as he called it,

chastised ” her for some fault, and of her behaviour to him on the occasion. It would not be easy even by entering into minute details to give all the reasons for my opinion, but I do not think that anyone who heard this man give his evidence could have doubteditsentire truth. He was a grave, elderly man, with no k_ind ogpecial talent, and with a slight impediment or imgerfectnonin his spe ; but all that he said had upon it the mark of

cnesty and sincerity, and the details which he av th h h '

I _ g e— oug , aving no egal advice, he was not prepared to prove them by independent evidence —were in th 1

emse ves some guarantee of his truthfulness. It is little less than a monstrous denial of justice that n man so situated should be deprived of the opplortunity of telling the truth in his own behalf under every sanction for is truthfulness that can be devised ; and I think that nothing but the force of almost inveterate habit could blind us tothe fact. It ought not however, to be forgotten that the opening of the mouths of prisoners opens a way to falsehood as well as to truth, and sometimes to falsehood which it is diflicult at the moment to unmask. I have known cases in which—as it appeared to me—failures f 'ustioe

o

have occurred because the prisoner, either from artfulness or tron: mere blunderlng, kept back til the last moment some more or less specious topic of defence and b h ' '

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »