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

ou am n

CHATWIN. HENRY J OIIN Sparkbrook. Warwick, Commercial Traveller. March
17 at 11. Oi! Rec, Birmingham

Courxs. ALLEN MARTIN, Sheffield. Station Master. March 16 at 11. Ofl Rec,
Figtree lane, Sheflield

COLLIER. RICHARD GI-30IlGEo Worthing, Stonemason. March 15 at 12. Off Rec,

4. Pavilion bldgs, Brig hton

DAVIS, EDMUND FRANCIS, Bmlinfton gardens, Solicitor. March 15 at 12. Bank-
ruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, incoln’s inn fields

DICKENS, STEPHEN FRANCIS, Peterborough. out of business. March 17 at 12.45.

Count?) Court, Peterborough

DRYSDALE. ETEB, Newcastle on Tyne, Builder. March 19 at 10.30. Oil Rec,
Pink lane. Newcastle on Tyne

DUNFgRDl. JAMES, Poole, Dorset, Builder. March 17 at 3.45. London Hotel.

oo e

Drsou. ELI. and Tnoms Drsox. Oldham, J oincrs. March 16 at 3.30. Off Rec,
Priory chmbrs. Union st. Oldharn _

DYsoN. ELI (s%p estate) Oldham. Joiner. March 16 at 3.30. Oil Rec, Priory
chmbrs. nion st, Oldham _

DYs0N. Tnorms (sep estate(2£0ldham, Joiner. March 16 at 3.30. Oif Rec. Priory
chmbrs. Union st, O1 am

EPKGBAVB, ELI. Redbourn, Hertfordshire, Baker. March 15 at 11. Oflf Rec. 29.
Park st West. Luton. Bedfordshire _

EVANS, Jonx. Abererch, nr Pwllheli. Carnarvonshire, Master Mariner. March

28 at 2.30. Queen's Head Cafe. Bangor _

EVANS. MORGAN, Llanfihangcl y Croyddin, Cardiganshire. Labourer. March 23 at
2. Townhall, Aberfistwith

FLOCKTON. Amen J ANE, ewsbury. Yorks, Confectioner. Mar 15 at 3. Oil Rec,
Bank chbrs. Batley ‘ _

Gairrrrns. ELIZABETH Mam’. Swansea, Colliery Propnctress. Mar 16 at 11.
Oil‘ Rec. 6, Rutland st. Swansea H

HALLIDAY, WILLIAM, Maldon, Essex, Draper. Mar 15 at 12.45. Gt Eastern
Hotel, Liverpool st

HARRISON. Jorm. Springthald, Yorks, Builder. Mar 16 at 3. Off Rec, Priory
chbrs. Union st. Olc ham

HASHIM, KHALIL. Manchester, Merchant. Mar 16 at 11. Bankruptcy bldgs,
Portugal st Lincolu’s inn fields

HESLOP. JOHN, Manchester, Theatrical Manager. Mar 15 at 3. Off Rec, Ogdcn’s
chbrs, Bridge st. Manchester

HINDLET. JUL!-38. Old Compton st. Soho sq, Dealer in Foreign Provisions. Mar

16 at 12. 33, Carey st. Lincoln's inn

Hvflnfis, $85!, lgbertfraw, Anglesey, General Dealer. Mar 28at 2. Queen's

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

WHEIiIi.Y, J1 Agms, Cleo, Lincohi, Farm Foreman. Gt Grimsby. Pet March 3. Ord

arc

WILMIs;IIra1s'r. HENRY. Maidstone, Fruiterer. Maidstonc. Pet March 3. Ord

' are 3 ~

The following amend ed notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of March 1.

HARRISON. Tnorms. South Stockton, Yorks, Pawnbroker. Stockton on Tees M111

Middlcsborough. Pet Jan 13. Ord Feb 25

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

.IP TEE LORD Ciianci-:i.Loii and the Government require any evidence to convince the Treasury as to the necessity for the :1§>P°ll:11tment of another judge of the Chancery Division, they dam th call for a_ return for the last two years of the number of nhirto 3 four existing judges who have chief clerks have been such revote to the bearing of witness actions, and how many of the “I10 ipns they have been able to dispose of, and what proportion subs? 6}‘ of those heard_bore to the total number on each list The f Eglnmllg Of each sittings, takmg transfers into account. list 0810 that Mr. Justice _KsKi-zwicn is rapidly disposing of his anothll y_ affects the question by raising the presumption that

.t er P1586 devoting his time exclusively to the hearing of

wi ncss actions Id t - - . . . and in aroidingzgleargna erially assist in reducmg the cause hsts

[graphic]

hagBl:U1't170 London members of the Incorporated Law Society guiaeag Q0 2 rtzcent date, sent in their names as guaranteeing ten in June “Wu Wards the costs of the entertainments to be given wmidemilk o the country members of the society. There are a to the has pliiimber of five-guinea guarantors, but, having regard moiety "J at there are about 2,500 London members of the hudlyibePsgponse so far made to the coimcil’s appeal can who have Onsi ei-ed satisfactory, or quite fair to those members probable fi"'°mPt1y come_forwai-d to undertake the liability. It is looked Sieve?» that 111 many cases the matter has been overjme donew 1*; Pressure of business, and the Grand Committee of guamntoe to afford a further opportunity for sending in names of guamute18- _ It should be remembered that an early intimation mum, ma deeg) 15 Particularly desirable, inasmuch as the arrangement de end)‘ the Executive Committee must, to a considerable and thaw gr on the amount of support which is forthcoming,

Pflllgcments must necessarily be made at an early date.

[ocr errors]

Ir was nor AT ALL LIKELY that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society would be overlooked by the indefatigable organizers of the Imperial Institute, whose scheme is apparently to put pressure on every known authority, from the heads of collegiate institutions to the chairmen of local boards, to induce them to send round the hat. And, when it was announced that the A_ttorney-General (apparently assuming the functions of a “Solicitor-Genersl") bad undertaken to organize a system of contributions from the members of the English bar, it was, no doubt, dilficult for the council to refuse to make an appeal to the members of their society. As we announced some time ago, they have acceded to the request of the “organizing secretary," and they have this week issued a circular to the solicitors of England and “tales asking for subscriptions. In doing so they have acted wisely in enclosing a copy of the missive under which they proceed, and in restraining the exuberant generosity of contributors to the modest sum of two guineas. The point in which their circular appears to us to fail is in evidence in support of the statements in the enclosed “brief” as to the claims on solicitors of “ the admirable scheme prepared by the committee ” nominated by the Prince of Wales. There is probably no class which surpasses the English solicitors in respect and loyalty to the Queen, but there is also no class the members of which are more likely to decide for themselves as to the mode in which their satisfaction at the completion of fifty years of her Majesty’s reign would be best expressed. In the case of most solicitors there are local memorials to which they are bound to contribute; others will be likely to think that some of the charitable objects which are promoted as a remembrance of the occasion are most worthy of their liberality. We confess we regret that the council have yielded to the pressure put upon them ; their appeal is not likely to be successful, and the precedent they have set of travelling out of their proper functions is not a good one.

Tar: REPLY of the Attorney-General to Mr. Macni-:aiv’s question, whether the Government intend to take any steps to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of Lord Si~:Liioiii:ii’s Committee “that an additional judge be appointed in the Chancery Division, and that the same stafl’ of clerks be attributed to each of the judges," was not unfavourable. The matter, he said, was engaging the attention of the Government, but at present no final decision had been come to. If report is correct, there is not only no disinclination on the part of the Government to carry out the suggestion of the committee, but there is a wish to do so, provided only the objections of the Treasury can be surmounted. It must be remembered, however, that the appointment of an additional judge is only the first step in the reforms which are necessary for procuring the rapid and efiicient disposal of business in the Chancery Division. The question of the division of the work among the judges is of the greatest importance ; and upon this matter it will be remembered the late Mr. Justice PEARSON dissented from the scheme adopted by the committee. There was, however, a complete agreement that provision must be made for hearing witness causes continuously, and the divergence of opinion on other matters might, we think, be reconciled by the adoption of the intermediate scheme We ventured to propound (30 Soniciroiis’ JOURNAL, p. 513). But it need hardly be said that the most pressing question is the disposal of the chamber business; and on this question one portion of the committec’s report adopted the strange idea which seems nowadays to have takcn possession of so many would-be reformers of administrative departments~—viz., that you can get more work out of a given number of men if you group them differently. There are twelve chief clerks; let six judges “have two chief clerks each,” and then, we suppose, we are to _wait for some wonderful improvement in the rapidity with which _busi.ness is transacted in chambers. It is hardly necessary to point out that it is not in this way that any improvement can be effectcd._ If the Lord Chancellor would ask three experienced London solicitors to investigate personally the conduct of business in the chaucery chambers and report to him as to the changes in organlzaholl which are desirable, he would obtain suggestions which we venture to say would be of infinitely more practical value than the report of any committee which takes formal evidence and includes a large proportion of members who have no practical 6Xp61'le11°° °f where the shoe pinches.

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

Loan BRAMWELL, in the debate on the second reading of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, is reported to have said, “ confidently, speaking as a lawyer," that the well-known clause, which has been inserted in every railway construction Act passed in and since 1845, whereby the railway by each such Act authorized is declared not to be exempt from any future railway Act, does not bear the construction put upon it by Lord Srsimnr of Preston, so as to 8.1{§;il01‘lZe the Parliamentary revision of rates propgsed by the Bill. ith the greatest deference, but quite as con dently, we maintain that the clause not only bears the construction referred to, but could bear no other. The words of the clause are 2 “ Nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to exempt the railway by this Act authorized to be made from the provisions of any general Act now in force, or_ which may hereafter pass during this or any future session of Parliament, or from any future revision and alteration under the authority of Parliament of the maximum rates and fares authorized by this Act." The words being “any future revision” under the authority of Parliament, it is clear as the English language can make it that the proposed Parliamentary revision i_s, at any rate, grammatically within them. But if there be anything in the subject-matter or the context to exclude the grammatical construction, of course the grammatical construction is not the true one. As to the subject-matter, Lord BBAMWELL says no one would have subscribed his money if he had thought that Parhament would revise the rates authorized by the original construction Act, Surely it is an equally strong argument that no rates could ever be_ intended by Parliament to be irrevocable and perpetual whatever might be the changes in the value of money, in the expense of locomotion, and in the pressure of a railway monopoly. As to the @°_!1teXl'~ Using the word in its widest sense and admitting all railway Acts, general and special, as part of the context of the clause, we are brought face _to face with a more specious argument. In 1§44 an _Act (7 & 8 Vict. c. 85) authorized revision, by the combined action_of the Treasury and Parliament, of the rates and fares of companies paying dividends of ten per cent. or upwards, such revision to be on such a scale as would, in the judgment of the revising authority, reduce the dividends to ten per cent. It is this revision and no_other, says Lord BBAMWELL, that is within the purview of the saving clause, which, “he has no doubt, was to prevent new companies saying they were not within this Act of Parliament (7 & 8 Vict. c. 85) because they came into existence after it was passed, and that there was nothing in their own Acts to limit their right to make more than ten per cent.” We think this View wrong for three reasons. First, the saving clause is at least Zllfililéfiuloscikizlgd 1td1sD&vlvell}knoI\;vnlrule0ot lag (see the cases of n an arm on aiwa o. . .

p90, is the best known, ciqted, “ amoiiyg rnirny :tliijithii1ihgiiitiis:,E;; ‘H1 Maxwell on_Statutes, 2nd ed., at p. 364) that where a local or personal Act is ambiguous, “the benefit of the doubt is to be $"911 t0 tl_10St' Who might be prejudiced by the exercise of the powers which the enactment grants, and against those who claim to exercise them.” Secondly, the Act of 1844 had no retrospective operation at all, but was prospective only and railways authorized alto; its passing were essentially and sblely the objects compre‘"1 ° 111 1'1, B0 that. if the saving clause is put in for the reason aygsefled by Lord BRAMWELL, it is put in for no reason at all. wléliiiisir ,l'9tVhi:l0‘l:cti1!1‘ilf ilfsiiiie PA0cludi:d1 Golvemnaent Pl.“°h'€;e as 1 _ _ on y, an revision erellglgef, had geen intended to be included under the words “ future _siou un er the authority of Parliament,” purchase as well as Zegiggqnazppgdithraig bleppd slpecially meptioneg: Now phat so great . KAHWELL, spea ing as a awyer, has giggillfiuggiffigzsfigllthfy yiedwothaii rgargiamgnfii in lpagsing the . .. . _l1_ sna rac i,wi eacting xiii» iselgmlfh fillugtirgl as it it took away “ an acpe from every that the lawzfificiars cit i:5l1iePC(i-Ioswivilit sliibiild él1$gkti.£ll)gpli.i1yl0(ie:)i!l‘a€liZ

sub' - - . WiVi:(i*i1,ealil3(i1lltli)1<:fiarisanili;hisogalddluczldo iliiiio lthepggltiiig 0ain((1J(i:!i]l.:li1l)1aiied

n .

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

of ii company he will require explanation, presumably with a view to visiting the second petitioner with costs, or at least disallowing his costs. The learned judge considered that the second petitioner could not be ignorant of the presentation of the first petition, seeing that when he went to the petition clerk to get the name of a judge balloted for, in accordance with R. S. C., V., 9 (d.), he would be made aware of the existence of the previous petition by reason of his petition being marked with the name of a judge without ballot, in accordance with section (e.) of the same rule. On ascertaining the existence of the previous petition it would presumably be his duty to procure a copy of it, and on finding that the hearing of it would effect the object of his own petition, his duty would be to abstain from incurring any further expense. In other cases of second petitions a similar consideration arises, and has been observed on by the court; and notably on Saturday last, Mr. Justice Srrnmxo, in a case of Re Ruddimanhr Trusts, which was under the Trustee Relief Act, refused to allow any costs of a second petition other than the costs of its preparation. This course would probably be adopted by Mr. Justice Nosru in the case of a second petition for winding up prepared in ignorance of the first.

[ocr errors]

Ir HAS BEEN srsrsn that a coroner recently fined a juryman forty shillings for appearing in the jury box drunk, and that, when the juryman protested and announced his intention to appeal, the coroner asked the other jurors to decide by a show of hands whether their fellow-juryman was drunk or not, and, upon their deciding in the afiirmative, “ confirmed his judgment.” We can find no precise authority for the power of a coroner to fine s. drunken juryman. The statutory power to fine under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 92, s. 17, is clearly confined to cases of refusal to serve after summons, and the common law power, which is general and not confined to jurors, appears to be limited to cases of actual obstruction of the coroner in the performance of his duty (see Jervis on Coroners, 4th ed., p. 240). A juror, however, must be probus at legalis homo and able to write his name legibly on the inquisition (see Jervis, p. 200, citing Lord Raymond, 1305), so that, although jurors upon coroners’ inquests cannot be challenged, it would seem to be almost a matter of necessity to reject a drunken man from the jury, “ for the not swearing of a juryman is of less consequence than the risk and hazard of a plea to the inquisition ” (Jervis, p. 201).

[graphic]

Tun Comm: or Ar-riin. No. 2, on Wednosdnv last, had in its list three cases in each of which one side was represented by 11 suitor in person. It rarely happens that a suitor in person is not obstructive to the business of the court, and Mr. Justice Cuirrr recently made some strong remarks about the “ tortu.re, vexation, and unnecessary expense” caused by some of these litigantsAs a rule, a person in this position, while absolutely convinced Oi the righteousness of his own cause, is abundantly ignorant as to the law, the rules and practice of the court, the rules of advocacy, and as to most things connected with the conduct of his case. I11 this state of things the court is in a sense forced to instruct him in order to minimize the waste of time, seeing that he cannot be sent away unheard, and, if allowed to talk on at his own discretion, he will introduce all kinds of irrelevant matters into his speechSome few of these suitors are worthy of consideration, find, indeed, of commiseration, by reason of their want of means. Bull the purely litigious suitor in person ought to be suppressed. Cases have occurred of motions being made from time to time by fl !1_1it0r in pcrson, each one more idle than the lust, and each one dismissed with costs. It is a diflicult matter for the court to protect such a suitor against the results of his own folly and persistent pugnacity, but it would, in the case of the purely 1mE1°‘15 B\1_it°1”, bshighly beneficial to that suitor, as well as W the court, if he could be put down.

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

ASSIGNMENT or AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY
WHEN TOO INDEFINITE.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

l I . * _ jg ltshprossrly applicable. We doubt alittle as to its applicability th e case in question, because it seems to us that the description ere m111_t lel1$0nahly have been construed to include a subjectmatter which was originally sufiiciently defined. We think that a good deal of confusion is caused in relation to this question by not g1stingu_ishing_ suflicieutly between th_e subject-matter and the _ Escription of it. There may be a description so indefinite that it }I§h"n581b1B to Say for certain whether anything comes within it. b ere may be a description which is definite enough in one sense, fut the subject-matter may _be indefinite. If a man assigns all his uture property the description is clear enough, but the subjectmatter is indefinite. In the case in question the description was clear enough; part of the subject-matter was definite enough, and part was altogether indefinite. We can conceive of cases where, such a description having been used, on applying the description by the light of the context and the circumstances, it might seem doubtful whether the description was intended to include any definite sub] ect-matter. If a man assigned all his future book-debts, it would not, perhaps, be enough to shew that there was a class of probable future book-debts which would have been covered by the description, and would have formed a sufliciently definite subject-matter for assignment, unless the context and circumstances shewed that the parties intended to include them. If the description, fairly construed by the light of the context and the circumstances, docs not amount to an assignment of the particular class of future bookdebts as well as any other; if the parties do not appear to have intended, by their description, s. sutficiently definite subject-matter as well as more which is not sufiiciently defined, then, of course, the wholeassignment must fail. W'e feel a difiiculty with regard to the decision in Oflicial Receiver v. Tailby, because it seems to us that, under the circumstances, and having regard to the context, the words of the assignment, fairly construed, may have meant the future book-debts to arise in the particular business, whatever they might be intended to include besides. At any rate we cannot help thinking that a business layman would be likely to think that such was the meaning.

[graphic]

INCUMBRANCES UNDER THE YORKSHIRE REGIS-
TRIES ACTS, 1884, 1885.

[ocr errors]

Elegi't.—The mere issuing of a writ of eleyit has no effect on the debtor’s land, for the writ merely commands the sheriff to do certain things. When he makes the return to the writ, or, in other words, delivers the laud in execution, the rents and profits of the land become charged with the execution creditor’s debt, and the land itself may be sold after registration of the writ under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112 (see ante, p. 39). The Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884, contains no provision for registering the return to the writ, though the writ itself can be registered. If the land is not situated in Yorkshire, every contract or conveyance by a judgment debtor prior to his land being delivered in execution is valid as against the execution creditor; it has even been held that a conveyance for value made by a debtor for the express purpose of defeating an execution, so as to leave nothing in himself which can be seized, is not fraudulent within 13 Eliz. c. 5 : Alton v. Harrison (4 Ch. App. 622); Hale v. Saloon Omnibus Co. (4 Drew. 492); Ilolbfrcl v. Anderson (5 T. R. 235) ; Daruill v. Terry (6 H. & N. 807); Wood v. l)i'.rie (7 Q. B. 892); Jlleua: v. I1owsll(-1 East. 1); Picksluck v. Lyster (3 M. & S. 371); secus when the conveyance is voluntary, Blm/sinsopp v. Blenkinsopp (12 Beav. 568, 1 De. G. M. & G. 495). If, therefore, it makes no difference to a purchaser who has contracted or taken a conveyance for value before the land is delivered in execution whether his contract or conveyance is executed before or after the writ is issued, it appears that the question whether the conveyance is registered in Yorkshire before or after the writ was registered is immaterial.

Apurchaser who entered into a contract to purchase, or, in cases where there was no contract, whose conveyance was executed after the land was delivered in execution, takes subject to the rights thereby conferred on the execution creditor, but it may he a question if (in the case where there is no prior contract) the conveyance is registered in Yorkshire before the registration of the

[graphic]

writ, the purchaser might not have priority over the execution

« PreviousContinue »