« PreviousContinue »
debtora ocuments" that that tirmed the
taken time at if the race
doub: tout corporatza, ered to be come to the lude such d not meet
patented machine. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the soliciting custom from (among others) customers of the plaintiffs. The
to be given ; it was only evidence of inability to pay the costs of the The COURT OF APPEAL (Cotton and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) affirmed the deappeal.- Counsel, H. Torrell, Beaumont ; Oswald. SOLICITORS, Inder-cision. COTTON, L.J., said he should have thought the particulars suffimaus & Brown; Chamberlayne & Beaumont; A. W. Mills.
cient, but it might be that a difficulty would arise when the case came on
for trial, and the judge before whom the action would be tried having Re AVERY'S PATENT-C. A. No. 2, 30th March.
taken that view, he thought it better that further particulars should be APPEAL-SECURITY FOR Costs—SECURITY ALREADY GIVEN POR Costs IN
given. It was not for the defendants to point out to the plaintiffs how COURT BELOW-ALLEGED SURPLUS—R. 8. C., 1883, LVIII., 15.
their specification ought to be framed; but there might be some particu
lar matter in respect of which the defendants could state the nature of me of the
This was an original motion that an appellant might be ordered to the deficiency in the specification. LINDLEY, L.J., thought that the examined
give security for the costs of his appeal. He had been ordered to give defendants ought, if they could, to state in what way the specification might be
security for costs in the court below, and had deposited £100 for this was insufficient to enable a competent workman to construct the machine. where a
purpose. He now adduced evidence to shew that the £100 would be more -COUNSEL, J. C. Graham; J. Ğ. Butcher. SOLICITORS, Good hart g Medthe party
than sufficient to answer the costs which he had been ordered to pay in calf; Renshaws.
the court below, and that there would be an ample surplus to cover the of a carcosts of the appeal which he was willing to undertake to allow to remain in
Re ALBERT PALACE ASSOCIATION-Chitty, J., 29th March. =hether or
court as security for these costs. The respondents adduced evidence to
INJUNCTION --- COMPANY — WINDING UP – PROCEEDINGS FOR PENALTIES -
COMPANIES ACT, 1862, s. 87. additional security to the amount of $20, and said that he must give the In this case an application was made ex parte by the official liquidator undertaking which he had offered. -COUNSEL, Yate Lee; Oswald. SOLICI of the association for an order under section 87 of the Companies Act, TORS, Neish & Howell; E. Kimber.
1862, restraining Bernard Boaler from further proceeding with a sum
mons taken out by him against the association for the recovery of penalties Re HUME-C. A. No. 2, 28th March.
for the association's default in keeping its register in accordance with 3 contrary
section 25 of the Act. It appeared that on the 20th of March, and after PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW TRUSTEES-EVIDENCE OF CONSENT OF
the date of Boaler's summons, an order had been made for the winding New TRUSTEE TO Act-R. S. C., DECEMBER, 1885, XXXVIII., 19A.
up of the association. The summons, which was before the Lord Mayor, This was a petition for the appointment of a new trustee in the place of a had been adjourned, but had been set down for final disposal on the day lunatic trustee, the petition being entitled both in Chancery and in Lunacy, following the present application. The case of Re Briton Medical, &c., and the question arose how the consent of the proposed new trustee to a ct Association (34 W. R. 390, 25 Ch. D. 503), was cited in support of the ought to be verified. The old practice was that the consent should be application. verified by affidavit, but rule 19a of order 38 (December, 1885, vide CHITTY, J., said that he should grant an interim injunction until the 30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 143) provides that “the consent of a new trustee following Friday (April 1), but the applicant must, when the summons to act shall be sufficiently evidenced by a written consent signed by him, was called before the Lord Mayor, undertake not to oppose an adjournand verified by the signature of his solicitor.” In Re Wilson (31 Ch. D. ment.--COUNSEL, R. B. Haldane. SOLICITORS, McDiarmid & Teather. 522, 30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 236) the Court in Lunacy held that this rule does not apply to a petition in Lúnacy, and that in such a case the old practice remains.
Re THE ORIENTAL BANK CORPORATION-Chitty, J., 26th March. The Court (COTTON, LINDLEY, and Lopes, L.JJ.) said that in Re Wilson Costs—SUPREME COURT FEES ORDUR, 1884, SCHEDULE (69)- COURT FEESit was assumed that the petition was entitled in Lunacy only. When,
PERCENTAGE FEE ON SALES IN COURT-SALES EXCEEDING £200,000. as in the present case, the petition was entitled in Chancery as well as In this case the question arose whether, in the liquidation of the cor. in Lunacy, the new rule applied.-Counsel, Onslow ; Luke. SOLICITORS, poration, which was possessed of Jands of very great value, under the Bell, Steward, $ May.
Supreme Court Fees Order, 1884, Schedule of fees, the court fee (69) of
2s. in the £100, payable “on the sale of any land pursuant to any order Re WICKHAM, MARONY W. TAYLOR-C. A. No. 2, 24th March. directing a sale with the approbation of the judge made in any cause or PRACTICE-STAY OF PROCEEDINGS-NON-PAYMENT OF Costs-POSTPONE
matter for the purpose of raising money to be dealt with by the court in MENT OF TRIAL.
such cause or matter," was limited by the subsequent provision, contained
in the schedule, to a payment of such percentage on a sum not exceeding The question in this case was as to the power of the court to order £200,000, and whether such sum represented a sum payable in respect of a the trial of an action to stand over until the plaintiff has paid costs single sale, or was made up by several sums payable in respect of several which he has been previously ordered to pay and has failed to pay: sales under several orders in the same cause or matter. On the 12th of June, 1885, a motion for a receiver made by the plaintiff CHITTY, J., said that it appeared to him that the £200,000 limit did not was refused, with costs. On the 24th of January, 1887, these costs not depend upon the fact that the sale or sales took place by virtue of one or having been paid, the defendant issued a summons asking that all further any number of orders. He thought that the rule was free from doubt, proceelings in the action as against him might be stayed until the costs should have been paid by the plaintiff.
for nothing was said in regard to the number of orders, or as to what
This summons was adjourned would be the case where there was one or more orders. He took it that transferted to Kekewich, J., for trial.
The action was attached to North, J., but had been the reason of the thing was, that as soon as the limit of £200,000 was diction came on for trial, and the defendant took the preliminary objec ment from the suitor in regard to the proceedings which the suitor bad set tion that the costs in question had not been paid, and Kekewich, J. (ante, p. 255), ordered the action to stand over generally, with liberty to
in motion for the purpose of obtaining a sale. Moreover, R. S. C, 1883, the plaintiff to apply to restore it to the paper on payment of the costs.
ord. 71, r. 2 (which was applicable to the Supreme Court Fees Order, 1884), And he ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the day. At a subse- include the singular and the singular the plural. For these reasons he
stated that, unless repugnant to the context, the plural number should quent period on the same day the summons for a stay of proceedings tuought that as to any landssold, or to be sold, in the liquidation, so as to raise further proceedings until the costs should have been paid. The plaintiff court fee was not payable. — COUNSEL, Latham, Q.C., and T. H. Wright; appealed from both orders. The Court of APPEAL (COTTON and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) held that when an
Romer, Q.O., and "Ingle Joyce. SOLICITORS, Freshfields of Williams ; The action is in the paper for trial, there is no jurisdiction to order it to stand
Official Solicitor. over because the plaintiff has not paid costs which, by a previous order, he has been directed to pay. A special application ought to be made for a stay COVENANT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE— VALIDITY—DIVISIBILITY-EXFORCE
BAINES v. GEARY-North, J., 26th March.
MENT SO FAR AS REASONABLE,
The question in this case was whether a covenant in restraint of trade was divisible in point of time, so that the court could enforce it to the
covenantee. The action was brought by B. and E., to restrain the defendCOUNSEL, Oswald and Pochin ; Chadwyek-Healey. SoLICITORS; G. Johnson ; ant from committing a breach of an agreement not to supply milk to the
customers of B. and his successors. B. carried on the business of a dairyCROM PTON V. THE ANGLO-AMERICAN BRUSH ELECTRIC LIGHT the defendant to emplos himenamilk carrierat a weekly salaryen and the CORPORATION-0. A. No. 2, 26th March.
defendant agreed faithfully to serve B., his successors and assigns, and he PATENT Action—PARTICULARS OF OBJECTION-SUFFICIENCY.
undertook that he would not, either during such service or after being cibis was an appeal from an order of Kay, J., that the defendants to an directors et indirectly, for his own benefit or that of any other person, or remotisal area of objection to the validity patent saindite patent, the inte mise successions or Astignsa tin February, 18877, B. entered into an agree. patiento restrain the infringement of a patent thoniddeliter further interfere with, any of the customers served by or belonging at any time to the particulars of objection alointed, indescriptioce, in the temperatore tibat peredt on the best od warch. The defendant continue aun the employment patented further direction and from the specification canopetent make the focus y give the ble set upa na halaily of his own, and sent found a circular
star de 3: afirmed by
It that start e star of en
applied to the
L.JJ.) horie come to
peal from the
to the judge.
he application to toe na be meria
an aprex 2
the plaintiff B. It was objected, on behalf of the defendant, that the February the required affidavit was filed, but the registrar, as the foreagreement not to supply the customers of the plaintiff went further than closure had been opened by the receipt of rents after the chief clerk's was reasonably required for the protection of B., because on its true con- certificate, declined to draw up the order because the defendant had not struction it extended to persons who might become customers of B. at been served with notice of the application. Notice having been served any time, even after the defendant had quitted his service, and that, upon the defendant accordingly, the plaintiffs, on the 10th of March, therefore, the court would not enforce the covenant at all.
moved for foreclosure absolute in default of payment by the 19th of March, North, J., said that covenants in restraint of trade, not being illegal, were and that the defendants should be ordered to deliver up possession of such divisible, so that if one part of the covenant was reasonable it could be of the mortgaged premises as he was in possession of. The defendant did enforced, while the remainder, if it was not reasonable, would not be not appear. STIRLING, J., confirmed the order of the 19th of February.enforced. This had been held in many cases with regard to space. And Counsel, W. K. Willcocks. SOLICITORS, Storey f Cowland, for Diver f in Nichols v. Stretton (7 Beav. 42, 10 Q. B. D. 346) it had been held that Preston, Great Yarmouth. such a covenant was divisible as regarded time. Assuming that the agreement in the present case would go too far if it applied to customers of B. and his successors at any time, whether during the period for which
WESTON v. LEVY-Stirling, J., 26th March. the defendant was in their employment or afterwards, it would, at any MORTGAGE-FORECLOSURE-ORIGINATING SUMMONS-RECEIVER. rate, be reasonable so far as it applied to persons who were customers of
In this case a question arose whether there was jurisdiction to appoint B. during the defendant's employment. His lordship accordingly granted
a receiver in a foreclosure action commenced by originating summons. an injunction limited to such customers of the plaintiffs.-COUNSEL, R. S.
The plaintiffs were first mortgagees, under an indenture of mortgage Norton ; M'Swinney, SOLICITORS, Warmington ; Marshall | Haslip.
dated the 27th of July, 1883, of certain leasehold hereditaments in
Castletown-road, West Kensington. On the 14th of February, 1887, they THE PORTISHEAD WAREHOUSE 00. v. THE BRISTOL AND took out an originating summons for foreclosure against the mortgagor PORTISHEAD PIER RAILWAY 00.-North, J., 30th March.
and a second mortgagee. On the 24th of February an order for foreclosure ARBITRATION-SPECIAL Case-Costs—JURISDICTION-COMMON Law Pro- was made in chambers. The mortgaged premises having been unoccupied CEDURE Act, 1854, s. 5.
for six months, and the mortgagor refusing to let them, although there A question arose between the above companies whether, under certain
was a tenant willing to take them, the plaintiffs now moved that a Mr. circumstances, the defendant company were liable to pay rent to the
Hutchins should be appointed receiver. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff company for a period of ten months, or whether, in the alternative, plaintiffs that although there might be no jurisdiction to appoint a they were bound to pay interest. The question was referred to an arbitrator, order had been made upon it, yet that, even prior to the Judicature Act,
receiver in proceedings commenced by originating summons before an but the costs of the award were not submitted for his decision, made an award by which he stated a special case for the decision of the
1873, there had been jurisdiction to appoint a receiver after such an court on the question whether the defendant company were liable to pay rent order had been made : Brooker v. Brooker (3 Sm. & Giff. at p. 475); Re or in the alternative interest, and he fixed the amount of rent or interest to Bywater's Estate (1 Jur. N. S. 227); and now, by section 25, sub-section be paid as the case might be if either was payable. North, J., on the 8, of the Judicature Act, 1873, the court could appoint a receiver in any hearing of the special case, held that rent was payable, and the question case in which it appeared just or convenient. was then raised whether the court had jurisdiction to deal with the authority to act at once, the plaintiffs being answerable for his re ipts
STIRLING, J., appointed the above-named gentleman receiver, with costs of the hearing.
Swinfen Eady. The defendant North, J., held that he had jurisdiction, and decided that the costs of until security was given.—Counsel, the hearing must be paid by the unsuccessful party.-Counsel, Cozens- mortgagor appeared in person. SOLICITORS, Hicklin, Washington, $
Pasmore. Hardy, Q.C., and Chadwyck Healey; Napier Higgins, Q.C., and E. Bray. SOLICITORS, Thos. White f Son; Hargrove & Co.
VEALE & CO. V. AUTOMATIC BOILER FEEDER, LIMITEDRe COPPARD, HOWLETT v. HODSON-Stirling, J., 19th March.
Q. B. Div., 25th March.
FORM OF SPECIALLY-INDORSED WRIT.
followed the form given in the Rules of 1883, appendix A., No. 2, comThe testatrix, by her will, gave one moiety of her residuary estate upon mencing with " Statement of Claim.” Judgment having been signed by trust for the benefit of the children or child of her nephew, to be vested the plaintiff in default of delivery of a defence, the defendant applied at interests in them, in case of sons, on their attaining the age of twenty- chambers to set aside the judgment on the ground that the statement of five years, and in the case of daughters, on their attaining that age or claim was bad for not concluding with the word “delivered,” in accordance marrying under it.
There were seven children of the testatrix's nephew, with all the forms given in appendix C., section 4, it being expressly four born in her lifetime and three after her death. The question was stated in ord. 3, r. 6, that special indorsements shall be to the effect of whether and how far the gift to the children of the nephew at twenty-five such of the forms in appendix C, section 4, as shall be applicable to the or, in the case of daughters, at twenty-five or marriage, was void for A master made an order setting aside the judgment, and this was remoteness.
affirmed by Huddleston, B. The plaintiff appealed. STIRLING, J., said that the case was governed by Elliott, v. Elliott (12 that the word delivered," or the words " delivered the
The Court (HAWKINS and Cave, JJ.) allowed the appeal. They said Sim. 276), which was an authority binding upon him. held that only the four children who were living at the death of the were not an essential part of, or even appropriate to, a statement of claim testatrix could participate in the gift. His lordship further held that indorsed on a writ. Such a conclusion was only applicable in the case of “vested” meant “vested in possession,” and not “vested in interest," a statement of claim drawn as a separate document and intended to be and, therefore, that one of the daughters, who had married, had become delivered between the parties. -- Counsel, T. W. Chitty; Macaskie. entitled to an indefeasibly vested interest in her share.-Counsel, Langley; SOLICITORS, Harvey & Capron ; Todd, Dennes, & Lamb. Pearson, Q.C., and Ernest Hatton ; Hastings, Q.C., and E. S. Ford; Å. F. Norton. SOLICITORS, Clarke & Calkin, for F. T. Pearson, Shoreham ; Crampton g Warne, for H, D. Warne, Brighton.
WHITELEY v. BARLEY-Q. B. Div., 25th March.
DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS-ACTION FOR PENALTIES.
This case raised the question as to the right of a plaintiff in an action
for penalties to obtain discovery of documents. The action was brought DAVIT OF RECEIPTS BY MORTGAGEES-DELIVERY OF POSSESSION.
against the surveyor to the Corporation of Ramsgate under section 193 of This was a motion for foreclosure absolute and for possession of the certain contracts made with the corporation. The plaintiif obtained the
the Public Health Act, 1875, to recover penalties for being interested in mortgaged hereditaments so far as they remained unsold. The plaintiffs usual order for discovery of documents. The defendant, in his affidavit were mortgagees under a mortgage, made in April, 1874, of certain heredi- made in pursuance of that order, specified certain documents which he taments in Suffolk. Part of the property had been sold by them under refused to produce, on the ground that the action was one for penalties. their power of sale, part they hail entered into possession of, and part was in the occupation of the mortgagor. On the 29th of January, 1886, the further and better atidavit. Master Manley Smith held that the affidavit
The plaintiff then applied for an order that the defendant should make a foreclosure. The summons did not ask for possession. On the 15th of said that the defendant ought to state in the affidavit that the production July, 1886, the chief clerk certified the balance due to the plaintiffs for of the documents would tend to make him liable for penalties. The principal and interest. The 15th of Jauuary, 1887, was the time fixed for defendant appealed, relying on the cases of Hunnings v. Williamson (32 redemption. The plaintiffs had received rents since the date of the certi W. R. 924, 18 Q. B. D. 4599, and Martin v. Treacher (34 W. R. 315, 16 ficate. The plaintiffs, on the 19th of February, the certified balance not Q. B. D. 507). On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued that the rules ad having been paid, moved for foreclosure absolute and for possession of so much of the mortgaged premises as had not been sold. Salt v. Edgar that the only test was whether the production of documents would tend (30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 322), was cited on their behalf. The defendant to criminate the party called on to make discovery ; and if it would, then, did not appear. STIRLING, J., extended the time for redemptiou to the 19th of March, be so stated in the affidavit.
on the authority of Webb v. East (28 W. R. 336, 5 Éx. D. 108), it ought to affidavit shewing the amount that would be made to theme one that day, the difference between an action for libel, like Webb v. Bast, and an action,
The Court (HAWKINS and Cave, JJ.) allowed the appeal, pointing out after allowing for moneys received for principal, interest, and costs. default of payment on that day, the defendant was to be absolutely fore
In for penalties. In the former the plaintiff was enforcing a civil remedy; closed, and the plaintiffs were to have possession. On the 25th of that the production of any document would criminate the defendant, the
Treasury were entitled to was to have credit to the amount of £101, the
365 law, before it relieved him from the necessity of producing it, required him to take that objection on oath. But in an action for penalties the whole solicitors must pay over the balance to the Treasury—that is, the difference
The Court (Day and Wills, JJ.) came to the conclusion that the local object was to criminate the defendant, and any demand for discovery between the sum received by the local solicitors for costs and the sum must be for that purpose. They thought the defendant ought not to be allowed them on taxation. DAY, J., said the sort of arrangement ordered to make any further affidavit. --Counsel, Tindal Atkinson ; H. F. entered into at the trial was not to be approved of, and could not be Dickens. SOLICITORS, Meredith, Roberts, & Mills, for Hubbard, Ramsgate; allowed to override the right of the Treasury to an account of the sum Kingsford, Dorman, ģ Co.
received by their local agents and to payment of the balance. Wills,
J., said the local solicitors acted as agents for the Treasury, and under PIKE v. ONGLEY-Q. B. Div., 16th March.
definite terms embodied in a memorandum of the Treasury. Circumstances PRINCIPAL AND AGENT–LIABILITY op Agent to Third Parties-Sale arrangement had been entered into of a kind which he was happy to
had arisen at the trial which could not have been contemplated, and an FOR AND ON ACCOUNT OF OWNER"-Custom of Hop Trade-Evi: know the Treasury never sanctioned, and the result of which was not
satisfactory as to the ends of justice. Under this arrangement & conThis was an action against brokers for non-delivery of hops equal to siderable sum had been received by the local solicitors--as agents for sample sold under a written contract by the defendants "for and on the Treasury-and the Solicitor to the Treasury was bound to see to the account of owner,” and signed by the defendants without qualification. application of the money as between the Treasury and its local agents, The plaintiffs tendered evidence at the trial to shew that by the custom of and to insist that the whole of the sum received, except the amount the hop trade brokers who do not disclose the name of their principal at allowed on taxation, should be paid to the Treasury: The court had no the time of the contract are looked upon as primarily liable upon the doubt that the Treasury would do what was right under the circumstances, contract. The plaintiffs did not inquire of the defendants as to who the and would allow all that was fairly due, but the court could not allow
owner" might be, but there was evidence to shew that they knew he arrangements of this kind—which they ought rather to do their utmost to was a foreigner. Manisty, J., before whom the case was tried, admitted discourage- to be carried out without control by the local solicitors. — the evidence, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs. On an Counsel, R. S. Wright, Channell, Q.C.—Times. application for a new trial, on the ground of misreception of evidence,
The Court (Day and WILLS, JJ.) said that though evidence of oustom was admissible to render an agent liable upon a contract where no contradiction was introduced into the document, it was clear that here the
CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS. agents were not primarily liable, and that evidence of a custom which Re HARRIS, POWELL v. GOODALE-C. A. No. 2, 24th March. would make them primarily liable upon the contract would contradict SOLICITOR-Oosts-TAXATION—"Fee for DBDUCING Title"-SOLICITORS' its terms. Therefore, the defendants were not liable and judgment must be entered for them.-COUNSEL, Winch; Murphy, Q.o., and Pyke.
REMUNERATION ORDER (August, 1882), SCHEDULE I., Part I. SOLICITORS, Irvine $ Hodges ; Philip Thornton.
This was an appeal from a decision of North, J. (ante, p. 255). The
appeal was limited to one only of the points raised in the court belowTHOMAS v. EXETER FLYING POST CO.-Q. B. Div., 22nd March.
viz., whether the solicitors were entitled to the scale fee for deducing title."
In August, 1884, the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of PRACTICE_WITHDRAWAL OF JUROR-COMPROMISE NOT CARRIED OUT-RE. London served on s., the occupier of two leasehold houses, a notice to
treat for the purchase of his interest, and in April, 1886, a contract was In this case a compromise had been entered into during the trial of an
entered into between S. and the commissioners for the purchase of his action for libel, in which it was agreed that the defendants would insert interest for £15,000. The contract provided that the commissioners should an apology in their newspaper, and a juror was withdrawn. The apology pay the vendor's solicitors' preliminary costs and also the costs of title and was in due course inserted, but an article appeared in another part of the conveyanceOn the 5th of April, 1886, the commissioners' solicitor wrotet> paper which the plantiff alleged was a repetition of the previous libel. An lease, please let me have abstract, otherwise I shall not require one."
the vendor's solicitors, “If the title consists of anything more than the
At application was then made to the judge before whom the trial had been this time the commissioners had acquired the reversion in the property commenced, and he ordered the cause to come on for trial again before him on notice to the defendants. Upon the second trial the defendants did expectant on the lease, though the vendor's solicitors were not aware of damages. The defendants then applied to the court 'to set aside the The commissioners' solicitor did not reply to this letter, except by sending not appear, and the jury found a verdict for the plantiff, with substanial this. On the 6th of April the vendor's solicitors replied, "The title
consists of the lease only; will you require a copy in lieu of abstract." verdict and all proceedings after the withdrawal of a juror, on the ground that the action had been put an end to, and that the judge at Nisi Prius lease was supplied by the vendor's solicitors. On the completion of the
a draft assignment of the lease for perusal. No copy of, or extract from, the had no jurisdiction to try the cause. The Court (Day and Wills, JJ.) said that the withdrawal of a juror charges, in which was included the sum of £82 103., which was the scale
purchase the vendor's solicitors sent to the commissioners their bill of did not put an end to an action. That could only be effected by some legal proceeding. The withdrawal of a juror was in effect merely an
fee for “deducing title” corresponding to the purchase-money of agreement to dispense with the verdict of a jury, and the action was still £15,000. The commissioners applied for the taxation of the bill, and the thies, so that the judge had jurisdiction to retry the case it he thought taxing master was of opinion that the solicitors were not entitled to the fee the agreement had not been fairly carried out, and the justice of the case
for "deducing title," but that they must be remunerated under Schedule required it. - Counsel, Charles, Q.C., and Bulien ; Pitt Lewis, Q.C., and
II. to the Remuneration Order. The solicitors carried in objections to Coleridge. SOLICITORS, Bolton, Robbins, f Co., for Dimond, Exeter; S.
the taxation, in which they said, “The vendor's solicitors deduced such Hamilton, for Friend & Beal, Exeter.
title as they had, and answered the only requisition capable of being made upon it. If they had forestalled the purchasers' solicitor's question by
delivering a copy or abstract of the lease, no question could have been Re PARKINSON: In the Matter of A PROSECUTION BY THE
raised, and they have done, in substance, the whole of the work in respect TREASURY-REG. v. GERSHON-Q. B. Div., 30th March.
of which a charge is allowed by the schedule.” The taxing master
replied, “The solicitors are not entitled to the scale charge for deducing tin this case the Treasury had directed a prosecution to be instituted title, &c., as no title was shewn to the purchaser (see Re Lacey, 25 Ch. D. against a person at Liverpool for offences under the Debtors Act=under 311)." The solicitors took out a summons to review the taxation. North, section 12 for felony and under section 11 for a misdemeanor-and a
J., affirmed the decision of the taxing master. He was of opinion that no Liverpool firm of solicitors were retained by the Treasury to conduct the
title had been deduced, and that the scale did not apply. prosecution at the sessions, which they did. einem up, the defendant pleading guilty to the charge of misdemeanor on the same ground. They said that Ex parte Mayor of London (35 w. R. under an arrangement by which he agreed to pay £80 80 the creditors and 211) was distinguishable, for there the solicitor of the purchasers had to The Solicitor to the Treasury, on hearing of this arrangement, called on fiches to the solicitors for costs, he not being called up for judgment. ascertain that the vendors (a public body) had obtained a direction from
the Lord Chancellor authorizing them to sell the property, without which at a little over £100, to account to the Treasury for the amount received Solicitors, Harris, Powell, f Goodale ; E. 4. Baylis. for costs, which they declined to do, insisting that the amount they had received had come, not from public funds, but from
UNQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS. private sources, and that the difference between the two sums covered
the instance of the Incorporated Law alcohe Treasury for a rule calling upon the liverpool "solicitors to given the following notice was heard before the magistrates at Derby on ofterine costs, especially of witnesses. This was an application on the part Society of the United Kingdom against Mr. William Clark for having account for the surplus. There had been a taxation of their bill of costs the 26th of March :
“6, Lower Arthur-street, Derby. bhat the costs of witnesses were generally defrayed by the local authorities, “ Final notice before proceedings in the county courts for the recovery of but the Treasury made good any deficiency. Counsel for the Treasury
small debts as per Act of Parliament. contended that the local solicitors acted as agents for the Solicitor to the
“I hereby give you notice that unless the sum of £0 5s. 8d., due by you to Fereasury, and received the money for him, and so were bound to account Graham & Bennett, is paid on their own costs. Counsel for the local solicitors insisted that the money ing you will think it advisable to pay the amount, and thereby avoid the the the surplus beyond the sum of $101" tared to the local solicitors for February, 1887, I shall proceed against you under the above Act. TrustThey paid to them as solicitors for the prosecution, and that all that the expenses to which you will otherwise be liable, l'am, yours respectfully,
“WILLIAM CLARK. taxed costs, and that the local solicitors were entitled to retain the
" £0 58. 8d.
“Dated this 4th day of February, 1887.
If you prefer settling this account before going into county court insuring £236,245, the new premiums received thereon amounting to bring this notice with you."
£8,085 198., of which £1,298 16s. was paid away for re-assurance. It appeared that the defendant was a clerk in the employment of the Nine life annuities for £679 28. 10d. were granted, the purchase-money creditor, but, notwithstanding this, he was fined 10s. and costs, as it was for which was £5,742 7s. 8d. Sixteen anpuities for £999 10s. 60. became shewn that he sent out the notice from his private address and signed it void during the year by death, in his name alone.
The claims under life and endowment policies amounted to £46,519 3s. 6d., which amount, although in excess of the claims for the year 1885, is below the expectation.
The total amount of losses by fire, paid and outstanding on 30th ELECTION LAW.
November, was £21,615 15s., ing about 45 per cent. of the net premiums In the Matter of A MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE BOROUGH OF received in the year. HYTHE-Q. B. Div., 24th March.
The average rate of interest realized on the assets of the company This case raised a novel question as to the withdrawal of an election (whether productive or unproductive) was £4 11s. 20. per cent.
The balance at credit of the profit and loss account, after crediting that petition in consequence of a reference to arbitration, the result of which had been adverse to the petitioner. There had been an election to the office
account with four-fifths of the surplus for the year, namely, £11,863 38. 3d , of alderman of Hythe and one Bean had been declared elected. The is £42,052 12s. 5d. The directors recommend the payment of a divi. return, contestingthat he had been returned by a majority of lawful votes,” credit of the profit and loss account the sum of £19,552 12s. 5d. opposing candidato, a Mr. Mallam, presented a petition against his dend of 4s. 6d. per share (free of income tax) for the year ending 30th
November, 1887. After providing for this dividend there will remain at so that the question was resolved into a scrutiny, which would be very expen. sive. Under these circumstances, the mayor, who knew both the parties, look not only at the general result of our business, but also to consider in
The CHAIRMAN said : Gentlemen, it is useful at the close of each year to pense and consequent ill. feeling of litigation, and that with that view they detail what has contributed to that general result. In the life department should meet at his house, which they accordingly did, and the result was
the fund has been increased by about £39,000. In these bad times this an agreement to refer the matter to the town clerk, who, on examination certainly is not discouraging. The average anaount of the new life of the voting papers, reported that Mr. Bean was duly elected. Upon policies continues rather to increase, the amount per new policy having this, the petitioner desired to withdraw his petition, as to which the been during last year about £930. At the close of the last quinquen. Municipal Election Act, 1882, s. 95, provides that leave to withdraw may nium the average of the subsisting life policies, bonuses included, was be granted by the court on special application, and the Corrupt about £830. We should have had a larger accumulation of funds last Practices Act, 1883, provides that the affidavits shall negative any year but for the unusual number of lapses and surrenders. The payments corrupt bargain or agreement. Aftdavits were accordingly filed in this for surrenders, you will see by the accounts, amounted to over £5,000. case, explaining how the desire to withdraw the petition had arisen-in This, of course, also diminished the premium income. It will, however, consequence of the intervention of the mayor --and negativing any tell favourably in the next valuation, because £5,000 cannot be paid away corrupt agreement. Counsel for the petitioner applied for leave to with- for surrenders without the retention of a considerable sum as profit on the draw his petition, as he found it would be hopeless to proceed. [A. L. policies surrendered. The lapses on policies which had not acquired a SMITH, J., inquired, How can we recognize a reference to arbitration of an surrender value were more than usual." The annual premiums on the sur. election petition which involves the interests of the constituency ?] The rendered policies amonnted to £1,340, and on the lapsed policies to £1,920, court is not asked to recognize the reference to arbitration (although as There were claims on 70 life policies in all, the average claim having been the petition only involved the number of votes and did not charge bribery about £660, being, as you will collect from what I have said, considerably or corrupt or illegal practices, there would, it is conceived, be no objec. below the average of subsisting policies. Ten reversions have fallen in, tion to it), and it is only mentioned as explaining how it came to be resulting in a profit of about £7,000 in respect of those reversions, and desired to withdraw the petition. The court can grant the leave which is sixteen annuities have lapsed, resulting in a very good profit in respect of applied for, and as all has been done which is required by the Act there those annuities. During the past year we have appointed forty-six rew can be no objection to it. Counsel who appeared for the alderman agents. You will observe by the report that the directors recommend an elected being asked whether he opposed the application, said he did not, increase of the dividend to the shareholders--namely, 4s. 64. per share, and on the contrary he rather concurred in it, and believed that every: instead of the former dividend of 4s. Our actuary, after a careful calcuthing had been done in accordance with the Act.
lation, advised the board that this proposal is a proper and safe one to be The Court (A. L. Smith and GRANTHAM, JJ.) upon this, said they saw carried out in this the third year of the current quinquennium; and that, no reason why the petition under these circumstances should not be although it offers a substantial present advantage to the proprietors, withdrawn, and so they allowed it to be withdrawn accordingly. - there is a reasonable prospect of something stiil better in the near Counsel, Dickens; E. Pollock.-- Times.
Mr. CHARLES PEMBERTON (the deputy-chairman) seconded the motion,
Mr. R. J. Sisson, J.P., asked on what basis the increased dividend had
been recommended ? He had always thought it was due to the share.
holders that the public should know pretty well how they stood with INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
regard to the value of their shares ; so that in the event of any shareThe following circular has been sent to all the country members of the holder selling out the persons who bought would see that they were society :
getting good value for their money.
Mr. McGedy explained the grounds on which he had felt justified in
pressed his belief that the present amount of dividend might fairly be
The CHAIRMAN added that the life profits had not been taken into “The entertainment will comprise a dinner, a ball, and theatrical repre
account in the estimated profit. sentations at one or more of the London theatres, and will take take place sum of £534,000 invested on mortgages. He wished to know whether the
Mr. John Root said he saw by the balance-sheet that they had the large from the 7th to the 10th June next inclusive. “ To enable the executive committee to make the necessary arrange
directors bad ample security for that large sum ? ments, we are directed to inquire whether you will be present at the
The CHAIRMAN said the interest in arrear was very small, only £3,000 meeting, and whether the committee may have the pleasure of including these mortgages. They had not, of course, taken any more Irish securities
or £4,000, shewing there could be very little difficulty with regard to you among the guests. “In the event of your intending to be present, we shall, in due course, also was the amount.
The number of securities they held on Irish property was very small, as have the pleasure to send you a formal invitation.
He believed there was no reason to apprehend any “It will be of assistance to the committee to receive your reply a day
difficulty with regard to the mortgages. or two before their meeting on the 30th inst.-We are, dear Sir, yours
The report was then unanimously adopted. faithfully,
Mr. EDMUND James moved "That, in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the directors, a dividend of 4s. 6d. per share, free of income tax,
November, 1887, in equal half-yearly payments on the 1st day of June
and the 1st day of December." The annual meeting of proprietors was held at the offices, 126, Chancery
Mr. John Root seconded the motion, which was at once adopted. lane, London, on the 24th ult., Mr. JAMES CUDDon, the chairman, pre- R. T. Raikes, solicitor, of 24, Coleman-street, to fill the vacancy coffendi
Mr. CHARLES Cheston moved the election as a London director of Mr. siding. Mr. FRANK MCGEDY (the actuary and secretary) having read the notice
sioned by the death of Mr. Wm. Crossman. They all deeply regretted convening the meeting and the minutes of the preceding general meeting, the directors' report was taken as read :
would bring more than average ability and great diligence to the business The report states that in the fire department new insurances were
of this company.
Mr. PEMBERTON (the deputy-chairman) seconded the motion, remark: the sum of £10,618 12s. 4d. In the life department during the same period 252 policies were effected,
considerable influence in his profession.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
of a diri.
times this new life
quinque Pluded, was furds last
papuenta mer 150. 1. however, paid asu rofit on the acquired a on the ser
to 10 aving bea mneiderat
fallen in ISIONS, ad
cants respecting the proper method of applying to the court for such an
367 =unting to
On the motion of Mr. S. E. STEINBERG, seconded by Mr. TYMNam, the retiring directors were severally and separately re-elected.
LEGAL NEWS. ase-money
Mr. E. H. BURKITT proposed the re-election of Mr. Theodore Water-
Mr. EDWARD BLEAYMIRE, solicitor (of the firm of Bleaymire & Shep.
herd), of Penrith, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Westmore. The CHAIRMAN announced that the directors had, in accordance with land (Mr. John Edward Hasell) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the 5, is below
the deed, appointed Mr. James J. Darley as directors' auditor for the ensuing year. Mr. Bleaymire was admitted a solicitor in 1848. He is current year.
clerk to the county magistrates at Penrith. On the motion of Mr. H. J. FRANCIS, seconded by Mr. H. MASTER, the premiums
Mr. HARRY PEARSON BROCKLESBY, solicitor (of the firm of Brocklesby, sum of seventy-five guineas was voted to each of the auditors for his Ley, & Brocklesby), of 9, Walbrook, has been appointed a Commissioner services during the past year.
for taking Affidavits in and for the Supreme Courts of the provinces of a company
The CHAIRMAN said he would now move a vote of thanks to the actuary Quebec and Ontario, in the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. THOMAS MARTINEAU, solicitor and notary (of the firm of Ryland, holders, and all concerned were very much indebted to them. He par- Martineau, Carslake, & Goodwin), has received the honour of Knighthood ticularly wished to notice the services of Mr. Rogers, the chief clerk of the
on the laying by the Queen of the foundation-stone of the Birmingham fire department, to whom they were greatly indebted for escaping many New. Law Courts. Sir T. Martineau is the eldest son of Mr. Robert losses, and he was quite sure they all highly appreciated his valuable Martineau, of Birmingham, and was born in 1828. He was educated at
Edgbaston Proprietary School, and he was admitted a solicitor in 1851, The resolution was carried with cordiality.
having served his articles with the late Mr. Arthur Ryland, with whom ach year to consider in
F. McGepy (the actuary and secretary) said he was very much he was for many years in partnership, and on whose death he was Department
obliged to them for the honour conferred upon him and the staff by this vote appointed law clerk to the Guardians of the Birmingham Assay Ofice. of thanks. It was a stimulus to them to find their services gave satis- Sir T. Martineau is an alderman for the borongh of Birmingham, and faction and were appreciated.
he is now filling the office of mayor for the third time. Mr. MARK WATERS returned thanks on behalf of the solicitors, and said
Mr. FRANCIS ROXBURGH, barrister, who has been appointed to act as it was their desire at all times to promote the welfare of the company,
Assistant-Judge of the Mayor's Court, is the only son of his Honour Judge
Sir Francis Roxburgh, and was born in 1850. He was educated at not only by proper attention to its legal affairs, but by bringing it new business.
Harrow, and he was formerly Scholar of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He
was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1873, and he Mr. Hugh SHIELD, Q.O., proposed a vote of thanks to the chairman for is a member of the South-Eastem Circuit. bis continued assiduity and effective services in the chair. It was the Mr. Harry Bevir, solicitor, of Wootton Bassett, has been appointed desire, as it was the interest, of every member of the society that he might by the High Sheriff of Wiltshire (Mr. Clement Walker Heneage) to be be long spared to give them the benefit of his great services.
Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Bevir is Clerk to Mr. F. R. Ward seconded the motion, which was cordially adopted.
the Cricklade Board of Guardians. He was admitted a solicitor in 1872. The CHAIRMAN having acknowledged the compliment,
Mr. ALBERT Iveson, solicitor (of the firm of Oldman & Iveson), of The proceedings terminated.
Gainsborough, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Lincolnshire (Sir Hickman Bacon) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Iveson was admitted a solicitor in 1860. He is coroner for the Kirton District of Lancashire and Clerk to the county magistrates and the Gainsborough Highway Board.
Mr. HARRY ALEXANDER COPE, solicitor, of Holywell, has been appointed NEW ORDERS, &c.
Registrar of the Holywell County Court (Circuit No. 29) in succession to
the late Mr. David Pugh. Mr. Cope was admitted a solicitor in 1873. He UNCLAIMED FUNDS IN CHANCERY.
is clerk to the Holywell Highway Board and to the county magistrates. Notice to persons requiring, information respecting the accounts of act as a Judge of the High Court of the North-West Provinces of India,
Mr. SYED MAHMUD, barrister, of Allahabad, who has been appointed to unclaimed funds in the books of the Pay Office of the Supreme Court. 1. All applications should be in writing, and addressed to the Assistant Term, 1872.
was born in 1851. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Paymaster-General, Royal Courts of Justice, London, W.O. 2. The only authorized list of accounts that have not been dealt with to the High Court of the North-West Provinces of India. Mr. Strachey is
Mr. ARTHUR STRACHEY, barrister, has been appointed Official Reporter since the 1st of September, 1871, is that published as a supplement to the the second son of Sir John Strachey, Bart., and was born in 1858. He London Gazette of the 8th of March, 1887, and no reliance should be placed was educated at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at upon any information which is not dervived from official sources.
the Inner Temple in June, 1883. 3. Copies of this list can be personally inspected in the Eastern corridor, ground floor, at the Royal Courts of Justice, or may be pur- appointed by the High Sheriff of Carmarthenshire (Mr. Gerwyn Jones) to
Mr. David Long Price, solicitor, of Talley and Lampeter, has been W.C., at the price of 1s. each. Application for copies to be sent abroad admitted a solicitor in 1855. He is clerk to the county magistrates and must enclose stamps to cover postage, in addition to the cost of the Registrar of the Lampeter County Court. Gazette, of which the weight is 11 ozs. 4. Each application must be signed by the applicant; if made by a
Mr. William WAKELIN, solicitor, of Presteign, has been appointed by solicitor he must state the name of his client, and that he believes the Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Wakelin is Registrar
the High Sheriff of Radnorshire (Mr. Francis Lyndon Evelyn) to be Under. client to be beneficially interested in the fund. (Rule 101 of Supreme of the Presteign County Court. He was admitted a solicitor in 1875. Court Funds Rules, 1886.) If the application is made by any person other than a solicitor, he must stone, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and
Mr. EDWARD WALTER HUNNYBUN, solicitor, of Huntingdon and Thrap. state the grounds upon which he claims to be interested in the particular Huntingdonshire (Mr. Henry Charles Geldart) to be Under-Sheriff of matter or suit quoted in his application, bearing in mind that the mere fact those counties for the ensuing year. Mr. Hunnybun was admitted a soliof the surname of the original owner of property being the same as that citor in 1871. He is clerk to the Huntingdon Board of Guardians, of one of the parties to a suit, is not sufficient to support a claim. 5. The correct title of the matter or suit must be quoted from the Authority, and Superintendent Registrar.
Assessment Committee, School Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary authorized list, otherwise the account cannot be traced. 6. The published list is only a list
Lord HERSCHELL has been appointed Chairman of the Currency Comin any sense, either a register of next of kin, or of heirs wanted, or of
the titles of accounts, and is not, mission. lapsed legacies, or of unclaimed estates.
Mr. GEORGE LEVINGE WHATELY, solicitor (of the firm of Roopers & ledge of the origin or particulars of the law suits referred to, it is quite George Rooper. Mr. Whately was admitted a solicitor in 1877,
de the Pay Office is not an office of legal inquiry, and has no know- Ottoman Railway Co., on the resignation of his partner, MIr. Maxmilian useless to furnish baptismal or other certificates in support of an alleged Mr. JOHN BASELEY TOOKE Hales, solicitor (of the firm of Hansells & must Each request for information respecting a matter or suit in the list Norfolk by the High Sherift, Sir Alfred Jodrell, Bart. Mr. Hales was
Hales), Norwich, has been appointed Under-Sheriff for the county of theast be stamped with a 23. 6d. adhesive judicature stamp, as required by admitted a solicitor in 1874. [Substituted for last week's notice.] obtained at rooms 6 and 419, Royal Courts of Justice ; at the district
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. mes. The only information which (subject to the conditions hereinbefore BEDFORD GLAsier, solicitors (Andrew, Woɔd, & Glasier), 8, Great
WILLIAM JOSEPH DewES ANDREW, WILLIAM Wood, and WILLIAM mentioned) it is in the power of the Assistant Paymaster-General to James-street, Bedford-row. Dec. 31. (a.) The amount of the fund in court.
BENJAMIN MUTLOW and HENRY SIMMONS BURBIDGE, solicitors (Mutlow quiredhe date of any order of court affecting the account (if specially Bourbidebidge, dan continue to Barrin sh the business at the above Funds in court can only be dealt with under the direction of an
[Gazette, March 25.] order of court. The Assistant Paymaster-General cannot advise appli- Frome. March 22.
WILLIAM DUNN and ROBERT PAYNE, solicitors (Dunn & Payne),
Thomas Hunt and ROBERT LUNN, solicitors, Warwick. March 25. 10.0 No notice can be taken of applications unless the foregoing instruc- (Molena Stone), "Derby, and sometime since at Ilkeston. March 25
RICHARD LOVELACE HOMER MOLE and FREDERICK STONE, solicitors
[Gazette, March 29.]
idend bail The share stood ord
tions are complied with.