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

security for costs in the court below, and had deposited £100 for th

purpose. He now adduced evidence to shew that the £100 would be mo
than sufficient to answer the costs which he had been ordered to pay
the court below, and that there would be an ample surplus to cover

th costs of the appeal which he was willing to undertake to allow to remain in

courtss security for these costs. The respondents adduced evidence shew that there would be no surplus. Tiiiz Gouizr (Cori-ox and‘ Lmnnrir, L.JJ.) ordered the appellant to gi - undertaking which he had oifered.—Cocisssr., Yale lee; Oswald. Souc ross, Nets/i Q Howell; E. Kimb:-r.

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

This was s petition for the appointment of a new trustee in the place of a
Y

lunatic trustee, the petition being entitled both in Chancery and in Lunac

and the question arose how the consent of the proposed new trustee to u c
ought to be verified. The old practice was that the consent should b

[ocr errors]

i

522, 30 Soi.iciross'Jounx.u., 236) the Court in Lunacy held that this ru
practice remains. 0'

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

'6 . additional security to the amount of £20, and said that he must give th

does not applvto a petition in Lunacy and that iii such a case the ol

it was assumed that the petition was entitled in Lunacy only. When

_ THE COURT (COTION, LmnLin', and Loi-rs, L JJ.) said that in Rs Wilson
as in the present case, the petition was entitled in Chancery as well a
S1

[ocr errors]

YROMPTON 1'. THE ANGLO-AMERICANBRUSHELECTRIO LIGHT

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 taken that view, he thought it better that further particulars should be m given. It was_ not for the defendants to point out to the plaintiffs bow their specification ought to be framed ; but there might be some particular ma ter in respect of which the defendants could state the nature of to the deficiency in the specification. Lixnisi-, L.J., thought that the vs defendants ought, if they could, io state in what way the specification is was insufficient to enable a com tent workman to construct the machine. re —Covi\'sni., J. C’. Gralmm; J. g.eBulu/isr. Sonicirous, Good/mrt if liediu calf; Bmshaws. e

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

6 In this case an application was made r.c p.»-tr by the oificial liquiclator ~ of the association for an order under section 67 of the Companies Act,

1862, restraining Bernard Boaler from further proceeding with a summons taken out y him against the association for the recovery of penalties for the association's default in keeping its register in accordance with section 25 of the Act. It appeared that on the 20th of March, and after 1' the date of Boaler’s summons, an order had‘ been‘ made for the winding

up of the association. The summons, which was before the Lord Mayor, had been adjourned, but had been set down for final disposal on the day , , following the present application. The case of Ra Briton illsdiml, §r., t |Associn1|'on (34 W. R. 390, 25 Cli. D. 503), was cited in support oi the e application.

to

[ocr errors]

de UHITTY, J ., said that he should grant an intsrini injunction until the 30 Soiiciroiis’ Joriuuii, 143) provides that “ the consent of a new ttuste to act shall be sufilciently evidenced by a written consent signed by him sndvsrified by the signature ofhis solicitor." In Jfe Wilson (31 Ch. D. l

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

9 In this case the question arose whether, in the liquidation of the corporation, which was possessed of lands of very great value, under the Supreme Court Fees Order, 1884, Schedule of fees, the court fee (60) of 2s. in the £100, payable “ on the sale of any land pursuant to any order directing a sale with the approbation of the judge made in any cause or matter for the purpose of raising money to be dealt with by the court iii 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 £200,000, and whether such sum represented a sum payable in respect of a single sale, or was made up by several sums payable in respect o several sales under several orders in t e same cause or matter.

Cm-rrr, J., said that it appeared to him that the £200,000 limit did not depend upon the fact that the sale or sales took place byvirtue of one or any iium er of orders. He thought that the rule was frec from doubt,

for nothing was said in regard to the number of orders, or as to what would be the case where there was one or more orders. He took it that the reason of the thing was, that as soon as the limit of £200,000 was

reached, it was considered that the court had obtained a siiflicicrit pay

ment froin ilie suitor in regard to the proceedings which the suitor had set in motion for the purpose of obtaining u sale. Moreover, R. S. C , 1883,

ord. 71, r. 2 (which was applicable to the Supreme Court Fees Order, 1834),

stated that, unless repugnant to the context, the plural number should

include the singular and the singular the plural. For these masons he

iuougbtthat asto anylandssold, ortobe sold, in the liquidation, so as toraise

the collective value of the total sales to over £200,000, the 2s. per fil00

court fee was not psyable.—Coi'xsnL, I/rthmn, Q-.C., and Wright;

Rainer, Q C., and Iflgltf Jo]/rr. Souci-mus, Freshjii-Ids Q Williams ; Tlis

Oficinl Solicitor.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The question in this case was whether acovenant in restraint of trade was divisible in point of time, so that the court oould- enforce it to the extent to which it was reasonably necessary for the protection of the covenantee. The action was brought by B. and E-, to restrain the defendant from committing a breach oi‘ an agreement not to supply inlllr to the customers of B. and his successors. B. carried on the busmess of a dairyman. On the 16th of» February, 1885, he_eiitened into an agreement with the defendant to employ him as milk carrierat a weekly salaryi And the defendant agreed faithfully to serve B., his successors and assigns, and_he undertook that he would not, either during such service or after being discharged or quitting such service, serve or cause to bo served, either directly or indirectly, for his own benefit or that of any other person. or interfere with, any of the customers served by or belonging-at any time to v

B , his successors or assigns. In February, 1887 B entered into an agree ment to sell the goodwill of his business to E the purchase to be oompleted- on the ith of March The defendant continued in the employment of B. until the 5th of March, when he left in pursuance of notice preiously given. He sct up a dairy of his own, and sent rouiid ¥;hCl!‘9lil:|' soliciting custom from (among others) customers of the plainti j 1 e plaintiffs movediioran injunction to restrain the defendant from sci; IE; with milk any-oft-he customers of the plaintiff L., or iormerly serve

[graphic]

364 THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. April 2, 1837. _

[graphic]

the plaintiff B. It was objected, on behalf of the defendant, that the agreement not to sllpplg the customers of thp went fit:-tther than was reasonabl r uire for the rotection o ., ecause oni rue construction it efiteediied to persoiiii who might become customers of B. at any time, even after the defendant had quitted his sprvice, and that, therefore, the court would not enforce the covenant at a .

Noarn, J ., said that covenants in restraint of trade, not being illegal, were divisible, so that if one part of the covenant was reasonable it could be enforced, while the remainder, if it was not reasonable, would not be enforced. This had been held in many cases with regard to space. And in Nichols v. Strcltou (7 Beav. 42, 10 Q B. D. 346) it had been held that such a covenant was divisible as regarded time. Assuming that the agreement in the present case would go too fard if it nphplied toicfustomerisl of B. and his successors at an time, whether uring t e perio or whic the defendant was in their elnployment or afterwards, it would, at any rate, be reasonable so far as it applied to persons who were customers of B. during the defendant's employment. His lordship accordingly granted an injunction limited to such customers of the plaintii‘fs.—Cova'.-r2i., R. S. Norton ; J{’Swi'mrey. SoLrCi1‘0ns, Waimington ; .Zl[arshall Q Haxlip.

THE PORTISHEAD WAREHOUSE CO. v. THE BRISTOL AND
PORTISHEAD PIER. RAILWAY C0.—North, J., 30th March.

[ocr errors]

A question arose between the above companies whether, under certain circumstances, the defendant company were liable to pay rent to the plaintifi company for a period of tcn months, or whether, in the alternative, they were bound to pay interest. The question was referred to an arbitrator, but the costs of the award were not submitted for his decision. He iuade an award by which he stated a special case for the decision of the court on the question whether the defendant company were liable to pay rent or in the alternative interest, and he fixed the amount of rent or interest to be paidas the case might be if either was payable. North, J., on the hearing of the special case, held that rent was payable, and the question was then raise whether the court had jurisdiction to deal with the costs of the hearing.

Nos-rn, J ., held that he had jurisdiction, and decided that the costs of the hearing must be paid by the unsuccessful party.--Corssan, C'0:en.x'Hardy, Q. .. and Uliadwyck Healcy; Napier Higyim, Q.C., and E. Bray. Souoirons, Tlms. White Q Son; Hargrove 4- 00.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The testatrix, by her will, gave one moiety of her residuary estate upon trust for the benefit of the children or child oi her nephew, to be vested interests in them, in case of sons, on their attaining the age of twentyfive years, and in the case of daughters, on their attaining that age or marrying under it. There were seven children of the testatrix‘s nephew, four born in her lifetime and three after her death. The question was whether and how far the gift to the children of the nephew at twenty-five or, in the case of daughters, at twenty-five or marriage, was void for remoteness.

S'l‘Ill.LINU, J., said that the case was governed by Elliott v. Elliott (12 Sim. 276), which was nn authority binding upon him. He accordingly held that only the four children who were living at the death of tho testatrix could participate in the gift. His lordship further held that "vested" meant “vested in possession,” and not “vested in interest," and, therefore, that one of the daughters, who had married, had become entitled to an indefeasibly vested interest in her illfi-!8.—COUN5l'.L, Langley ; Paar»-on, Q,.C., and Ernest Hatton ; Hastings, Q.C., and E. S. Ford; R. F. Nortm. Soucrroas, Clarice _4- Callzin, for F. T. Pearson, Shoreham ' Crampton Q Warm, for H. D. Warne, Brighton.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This was a motion for foreclosure absolute and for possession of the mortgaged hereditaments so far as they remained unsold. The plaintiffs were mortgagees under a mortgage, made in April, 1874, of certain hereditanients in Suffolk. Part of the property been sold by them under their power of sale, part they hm enteredinto possession of, and part was ll! theoccupation of theniortgagor. On the 29th of January, 1886, the plaintiffs took out an originating summons for the usual accounts and for foreclosure. The summons did not ask for possession. On the 15th of Ju_ly,_1886, the chief clerk certified the balance due to the plaintifis for principal and intercst._ The 15th of J auuary, 1887, was the time fixed forf'i°d':'Pi-1r1Q§- irho t&l:1Dfifis had received rents since the date of the certihml - base P , on the 19th of hebruary, the certified balance not

"128 £ ‘E P51 »r;110ved for foreclosure absolute and for possession of so mu“ ° ° m° 811884 premises as had not been sold. Salt v. Ed ar

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]

February the required affidavit was flied, but the registrar, as the fore

closure had been opened by the receipt of rents after the chief clerk's
certificate, declined to draw up the order because the defendant had not
been served with notice of the application. Notice having been served
upon the defendant accordingly, the plaintiffs, on the 10th of March,

moved for foreclosure absolute in default of payment by the 19th of March,

and that the defendants should be ordered to deliver up possession of such
of the mortgaged premises as he was in possession of. The defendant did
not appear. Sriniiso, J ., confirmed the order of the 19th of February.-
COUNSEL, W’. K. Willcooks. SOLICITORS, Storey Q (lowland, for Diver 4-
Pmton. Great Yarmouth.

[ocr errors]

In this case a question arose whether there was jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in a foreclosure action commenced by originating summons. The plaintiffs were first mortgagees, under an indenture of mortgage dated the 27th of July, 1883, of certain leasehold hereditaments in Castletown-road, West Kensington. On the 14th of February, 1887, they took out an originating summons for foreclosure against the mortgagor and a second mortgagee. On the 2-ith of February an order for foreclosure was made in chambers. The mortgaged premises having been unoccupied for six months, and the mortgagor refusing to let them, although there was a tenant willing to take them, the plaintiffs now moved that a Mr. Hutchins should be appointed receiver. It was argued on behalf o_f the plaiutifis that although there might be no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in proceedings commenced by originating summons before an order had been made upon it, yet that, even prior to the Judicature Act, 1873, there had been jurisdiction to appoint a receiver after such an order had been made: Brook-er v. Brool.-er (3 Sm. 8: Giff. at p. 475); 15¢ Bywater's Estate (1 Jur. N. S. 227); and now, by section 25, sub-section 8, of the Judicature Act, 1873, the court could appoint a receiver in any case in which it appeared just or convenient. _ _

Srranrso, J ., appointed the above-named gentleman receiver, with authority to act at once, the plaintiffs being answerable for his re ipts until security was given.——Cor:ssar., Swinfm Eariy. The defendant rportgagor appeared in person. Soniciroas, Hivklin, W rullington, 5

IZ6flZOYE.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The writ in this action was specially indorsed. The indorsement followed the form given in the Rules of 1883, appendix A., No. 2, commencing with “ Statement of Claim.” Judgment having been signed by the plaintiff in default of delivery of a defence, the defendant applied at chambers to set aside the judgment on the ground that the statement of claim was bad for not concluding with the word “ delivered," in accordance with all the forms given in appendix C., section 4, it being expressly stated in ord. 3, r. 6, that special iudorsements shall be to the effect of such of the forms in appendix C , section 4, as shall be applicable to the case. A master made an order setting aside the judgment, and this was ailirmed by Huddleston, B. The plaintifi appealed. _

THE Couar (HAWKINS and Cara, JJ.) allowed the appeal. They said that the word “ delivered," or the words “ delivered the day of ," were not an essential part of, or even appropriate to, a statement of claim indorsed on a writ. Such a conclusion was only applicable in the case 0! a statement of claim drawn as a separate document and intended to be delivered between the parties. — Coussan, T. W. Chilly ; Kac:1-r/MSor.rci-roiis, Harvey 5- C’/rpron ,- To/id, Dames, Q Lamb.

[ocr errors]

This case raised the question as to the right of a plaintiff in an Iwtwll for penalties to obtain discovery of documents. The action was brouflht against the surveyor to the Corporation of Ramsgate under section 193 of the Public Health Act 1875 to recover penalties for being interested ill certain contracts made with the corporation. The laintilf obtained the usual order for discove of documents The defendant, in his llfidflfii made in pursuance of that order specified certain documents which he refused to produce, on the ground that the action was one for penalties. The plaintiff then ap lied for an order that the defendant should make H further and better afli)davit Master Manley Smith held that the alfidavib was sufiicient- but Huddleston B on appeal held that it was not. ‘ma said that the defendant ought ti) stiite in the alfidavit that the reduction of the documents would tend to make him liable for penalties. T119 defendant appealed relying on the cases of Humiings v. Williamson (31 W- R. 924. 10 Q. Bi 1). 459) and Martin v. Treadwf (34 W~ 3- 31516 Q. B. D. 507). On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued that the rules 89 to discovery in actions for penalties were the same as in other actiollflr and that the only test was whether the production of documents would tend to criminate the party called on to make discovery ; and if it would, ‘hengr; the authority of Wm v. Em (28 W. R. 336, 5 Ex. D. 108), it ouch‘ *°

TslfI)Bs:]a::fiTnl(E:el:V?{§:Ital:;Ei Cara J J ) allowed the appeal pointing °“i the difference between an action fdr libel like Webb v. East, and 311cm” for penalties. In the former the laintiiif was enforcing ii civil Tamed” and had a right to discovery fromlthe defendant‘ and. if it 9° lmppmed fluwe Pl‘°*'11°l-1°11 Oi any document would criniiiiate the defendant, 911°

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

q ;April2, I887. THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. 365

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

lsw, before it relieved him from the necessity of producing it, requii-ed him to take that objection on oath. But in an action for penalties the whole object was to criminate the defendant, and any demand for discovery must be for that purpose. They thought the defendant ought not to be ordered to make any further afidavit.—-Cocivsnn, Tindal Atkinson ,- H. F, Dial-mi. SOLICITORS, Meredith, Roberts, Q Hills, for Hubbard, Ramsgate; Ki'ny:fora', Dorman, Q 6'0.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This was an action against brokers for non-delivery of hops equal to sample sold under s. written contract by the defendants “for and on account of owner," and signed by the defendants without qualification. The plaintiffs tendered evidence at the trial to shew that by the custom of the hop trade brokers who do not disclose the name of their principal at the time of the contract are looked upon as primarily liable upon the contract. The plaintilfs did not inquire of the defendants as to who the "owner" might be, but there was evidence to shew that they knew he wasa foreigner. Manisty, J ., before whom the case was tried, admitted the evidence, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs. On an spphcstion for a new trial, on the ground of misreception of evidence,

i‘iiii C_ou_s.r (DAY and Wn.i.s, JJ.) said that though evidence of custom was adniissibleto render an agent liable upon a contract where no contradiction was introduced into the document, it was clear that here the agents were not primarily liable, and that evidence of a custom which would make them primarily liable upon the contract would contradict its terms. Phersfore, the defendants were not liable and judgment must be entered for flIl6l11.—COUNSllL, lVinc/1; Murphy, Q.C., and _P_(//ca, boiicirons, Irvine Q Hodge: ; Philip Thornton.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I_l1 this case a compromise had been entered into during the trial of an sction for libel, in _which it was agreed that the defendants would insert an apology in their newspaper, and a juror was withdrawn. The apology was in due course inserted, but an ai-tic e appeared in another part of the paper which the plantifi alleged was a repetition of the previous libel. An application was then made to the judge before whom the trial had been commenced, and he ordered the cause to come on for trial again before him on noticetothe defendants. Upon the second trial the defendants did ml “PPW. mid the jury found a verdict for the plantiif, with substanial damiigcs. The defendants then applied to the court to set aside the verdict and_all proceedings after the withdrawal of a juror, on the ground that the action had been put an cud to, and that the j udgs at Mai Prius had no jurisdiction to try the cau3e_

“Tu Couiir (Du and Wu.x.s, JJ.) said that the withdrawal of a juror

dim Put M} end to an action. That could only be effected by some 198“ Pl'°¢BB<1111_g- The withdrawal of a juror was in effect merely an *1-fireeinent to dispense with the verdict of a jury, and the action was still 31"» B0 that the judge had jurisdiction to retry the case if he thought r e '!3"°"!11°11ll1B-d not been fairly carried out, and the justice of the case Unlined it.—Covi~'snL, Chrwlas, Q.C., and Bullm ; Pitt Lewis, Q.C., and 1; _d!¢- Scuciroas, B0/ton, Izohbim, 4- 00., for Dimond, Exeter; S.

"'"‘”‘"'» for Fiwid 4 Deal, Exetei-_

Re PARKINSON: In the Matter ofA PROSECUTION BY THE TREASURY—REG. v. GERSHON—Q. B. Div., 30th March.

I1} fill! csse the Treasury had directed a prosecution to be instituted gig?!Ill P9111011 at Liverpool for offences under the Debtors Act—under Liv 011 2 for felon_y_and under section ll for a misdemeanor—and a

m°"Pool firm of sohcitors were retained by the Treasury to conduct the llvzecutlon at the sessions, which they did. The charge of felony was gzdélrllp, the defendant pleading guilty to the charge of misdemeanor £198 toflnhanangemcnt by which he agreed to pay £80 to the creditors and Thes like solicitors for costs, he not being called up for judgment. the, ° 161%; _to the Treasury, on hearing of this arrangement, called on at H ml B°l1°ll0rs. whose bill of costs as against the Treasury was taxed ,0! e °V@Tl00, to account to the Treasury for the amount received the Winch they declined to do, insisting that the amount Pfiéte received had come, not from public funds, but from ems 5°1"'°€9. and that the difference between the two sums covered of thecfiftsi “Pecially of witnesses. This was an application on the part account ,,m““1'Y for n rule calling upon the Liverpool solicitors to 3, ,, amr the ‘""'Plus. There had been a taxation of their bill of costs tlmgthes the Trfiflsuiy, and the amount taxed was £101. It was stated but the gets of witnesses were generally defrayed by the local authorities, conmnded gull?!’ H18-dc any deficiency. Counsel for the Treasury Tram“ hat the local solicitors acted as agents for the Solicitor to the for the ,7. mid received the money for him, and so were bound to account their ownurp us belond the sum of £101 taxed to the local solicitors for was paid C°11nsel_for the local solicitors insisted that the money Tmamryw 119111}!-s solicitors for the prosecution, and that all that the hm, comefc entitled to was to have credit to the amount of £101, the duferenw 6 51111 that the local solicitors were entitled to retain the result u °f Whlch they would have to pay the witnesses, &c. In the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Tun Cocnr (DAY and WILLS, JJ.) came to the conclusion that the local solicitors must pay over the balance to the Trsasury—thatis, the difference between the sum received by the local solicitors for costs and the sum allowed them on taxation Dar, J., said the sort of arrangement entered into at the trial was not to be approved of, and could not be allowed to override the right of the Treasury to an account of the sum 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 definite terms embodied in a memorandum of the Treasury. Circumstances had arisen at the trial which could not have been contemplated, and an arrangement had been entered into of s kind which he was happy to know the Treasury never sanctioned, and the result of which was not satisfactory as to the ends of justice. Under this arrangement a considerable sum had been received by the local solicitors—s.s agents for the Treasui-y—and the Solicitor to the Treasury was bound to see to the application of the money as between the Treasury and its local agents, and to insist that the whole of the sum received, except the amount allowed on taxation, should be paid to the Treasury. The court had no doubt that the Treasury would do what was right under the circumstances, and would sllowall that was fairly due, but the court could not allow arrangements of this kind—which they ought rather to do their utmost to discou1'age—to be carried out without control by the local solicitors.Covssxh, R. S. lVri_aM, Charzziell, Q_.C.—Time-i.

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

This was an ap al from a decision of North, J. (ante, p. 255). The appeal was limiteclw to one only of the points raised in the court below— viz., whether the solicitors were entitled to the scale fee for “ deducing title.” In August, 1884, the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London served on S., the occupier of two leasehold houses, s notice to treat for the urchase of his interest, and in April, 1886, s. contract was entered into getween S. and the commissioners for the purchase of his interest for £15,000. The contract provided that the commissioners should pay the vendor's solicitors’ preliminary costs and also the costs of title and conveyance. On the 5th of April, 1886, the commissioners’ solicitor wi-otsti the vendor's solicitors, “If the title consists of anything more than the lease, please let me have abstract, otherwise I shall not require one.” At this time the commissioners had acquimd the reversion in the property expectant on the lease, though the vendor-’s solicitors were not aware of 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." The commissioners’ solicitor did not reply to this letter, except by sending a draft assignment of the lease for perusal. No co8yof,or extract from, the lease was supplied by the veudor’s soliciwrs. D. the completion of the purchase the vendor's solicitors sent to the commissioners their bill of charges, in which was included the sum of £82 10s., which was the scale fee for “ deducing title " corresponding to the purchase-money of £15,000. The commissioners applied for the taxation of the bill, and the taxing master was of opinion that the solicitors were not entitled to the fee for “ deducing title," but that they must be remunerated under Schedule II. to the Remuneration Order. The solicitors carried in ob'ections to the taxation, in which they said, “The vendor's solicitors deduced such 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 raised, and they have done, in substance, the whole of the work in respect of which a charge is allowed by the schedule." The taxing master re lied, “ The solicitors are not entitled to the scale charge for deducing title, &c., as no title was shewn to the purchaser (ses Re Lacey, 25 Ch D. 311)." The solicitors took out a summons to review the taxation. North, J ., 8flll‘m6Cl the decision of the taxing master. He was of opinion that no title had been deduced, and that the scale did not apply. _ _

THE Conn-r or Ar-mast (Cor-rox and LINDLRY, L JJ.) affirmed the _decis1on on the same ground. They said that E: paste lllayor of London (30 W. R. 211) was distinguishable, for thei-s_ the solicitor of the purchasers had to ascertain that the vendors (a public body) had obtained a direction from the Lord Chancellor authorizing them to sell the property, without which they would have no power to sell. —CouxsnI., '.Byrm ; J. llendcrson. SOLICITORS, Harrtlv, Powell, 5' Goodale ; E. A. Ea;/lu.

[ocr errors]

A ummons issued at the instance of the Incorporated Law Soclstay of the United Kingdom against Mr. William Clark for having given the following notice was heard before the magistrates at Derby on

the with of Much :_ “ 6, Lower Arthur-street, Derby. “Final notice before roceedings in the county courts for the recovery of small debts as per Act of Parliament.

“ I hereby give you z_1otice_that unless the sum of £0 5s. 8d., due by you to Graham & Bennett, is paid on _or before Friday, the llth day of February, I887, I shall (proceed against you under the above Abct. Tang. ing you will think it a visable to p_sy the amount, and there y awilfuu 6 expenses to which you will otherwise be hable, I sin, yp;iIr:Ix0%B:AM 1,

“ £0 5s. 8d.

“Tc Mr. Beardsley, Smallsy.

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

“Dated this 4th day of February, 1887.

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

This case raised a novel question as to the withdrawal of un election

petition in consequence of a reference to arbitration, the result of which

ad been adverse to the petitioner. There had been an election to the oflice of alderman of Iiythe and one Bean had been declared elected. The opposing candidate, a Mr. Mallam, presented a petition against his return, contestingthat he had been “ returned by amajority of lawful votes," sothat the question was resolved intoa scrutiny, which would be very expensive. Under these circumstances, the mayor, who knew both the parties, wrote to them a letter suggesting that it would be desirable to avoid the expense and consequent ill-feeling of litigation, and that with that view they should meet at his house, which they accordingly did, and the result was an agreement to refer the matter to the town clerk, who, on examination of_the voting papers, reported that Mr. Bean was duly elected. Upon this,_ the petitioner desired to withdraw his petition, as to which the Municipal Election Act, 1882, s. 95, provides that leave to withdraw may be granted by the court on special application, and the Corrupt Practices Act_, 1883, provides that the afi‘iduvits shall negative any corrupt bargain or agreement. Afiidavits were accordingly filed in this case, explaining how the desire to withdraw the petition had arisen-in consequence of the intervention of the mayor--and negativing any corrupt.agree_nient. Counsel for the petitioner applied for leave to withdraw his p_etit.ion, as ho found it would be hopeless to proceed. [A. L. 3-‘"T1_', -7-, 11}q_uired. _Hov_v can we recognize a reference to arbitration of an election petition which involves the interests ot the constituency P] The court isnot a.sked_ to recognize the reference to arbitration (although as the petition only involved_the number of votes and did not charge bribery pr corrupt or illeg_al_praotices, there would, it is _conceived, be no objec

1°1} I/° It). and it is only mentioned as explaining how it came to be desired to withdraw the petition. The court can grant the leave which is applied tor, and as all has_been done which is required by the Act there Gilli be no obgection to it. Counsel who appeared for the alderman e egted being asked whether he opposed the application, said he did not, an_ on the contrary he rather concurred in it, and believed that everything had been done in accordance with the Act.

Tl; c°VRT (A. L. Sui-i-_ii and Guasruan, JJ.) upon this, said they saw “‘?fi:3“'s°“ Why the petition under these circumstances should not be “'1r'_mWl1._and so they allowed it to be withdrawn accordingly.CoL.\ssi., Dickens; E. Pvl!0ck.—Ttme-s".

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

gll

insni-in £236,245, the new (premiums received thereon amounting £8,085 Tile, of which £1,298 1 s. was paid away for re-assurance.

Nine life annuities for £679 2s. 10d. were granted, the purchase-money for which was £5,742 7s. 8d. Sixteen annuities for £909 10s. Gd. became void during the ear by death.

The claims undlzr life and endowment policies amounted to £46,519 3s. 6d., which amount, although in excess of the claims for the year 1S85, is below the expectation.

The total amount of losses by fire, paid and outstanding on 30th November, was £21,615 15s., being about 45 per cent. of the net premiums received in the year.

The average rate of interest realized on the assets of the company (whether productive or unproductive) was £4 11s. 2d. per cent.

The balance at credit of the profit and loss account, after crediting that account with four-fifths of the surplus for the year, namely, £11,863 3s. 3d , is £42,052 12s. 5d. The directors recommend the payment of a dividend 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 credit of the profit and loss account the sum of £10,552 12s. 5d.

The CHAIRMAN said : Gentlemen, it is useful at the close of each year to lcok not only at the general result of our business, but also to consider in detail what has contributed to that general result. In the life department the fund has been increased by about £39,000. In these bad times this certainly is not discouraging. The average amount of the new lite nolicies continues rather to increase, the amount per new policy having been during last year about £930. At the close oi the last quinquennium the average oi the subsisting life policies, bonuses included, was about £830. \Ve should have had alarger accumulation of funds last year but for the unusual number of lapses and surrenders. The payments for surrenders, you will see bg the accounts, amounted to over £5,000. This, of course, also diminishe the reminm income. It will, however, toll favourably in the next valuationfbecausa £5,000 cannot be paid away for surrenders without the retention of a considerable sum as profit on the policies surrendered. The lapses on policies which had not acquired a surrender vislne were more than usual. The annual premiums on the surrendered policies amounted to £1,340, and on the lapsed policies to £l.920. There were claims on T0 lite policies in all, the average claim having been about £660, being, as you will collect from what I have said, considerably below the average of subsisting policies. Ten reversions have fallen iii. resulting in a profit of about £7,000 in respect of those ieversions, and sixteen annuities have lapsed, resulting in a very good profit in respect of those annuities. During the past year we have appointed forty-six new agents. You will observe by the report that the directors recommend an increase of the dividend to the shareholders—namely, 4s. 6d. per share, instead of the former dividend of 4s. Our actuary, after a careful calculation, advised the board that this proposal is a proper and safe one to be carried out in this the third year of the current quinquennium ; and that, although it oflers a substantial present advantage to the proprietors, there is a reasonable prospect of something still better in t e near

future.

Mr. CHARLES PE)lIiB1l1‘ON (the deputy-chairman) seconded the motion, and congratulated the shareholders on the success of the company and the enhanced dividend.

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 shareholders that the public should know pretty well how they stood with regard to the value of their shares; so that in the event of any shareho der selling out the persons who bought would see that they were getting good value for their money.

Mr. McGim\' cxplained the grounds on which he had felt justificd in reporting to the directors the ability ot the company to pay a lsr8" dividend, arising chiefly out of the profits on the fire business, Bud (Xpressed his belief that the present amount of dividend might fairly_b@ expected to be paid during the ensuing three years of the current quinquennium. _

The CHAIRMAN added that the life profits had not been taken into account in the estimated profit.

lllr. J orm Roor said he saw by the balance-sheet that they had the larle sum ot £534,000 invested on mortgages. He wished to know whether the directors had ample security for that large sum?

The CHAIRMAN said the interest in arreur was very small, only £3-000 or £4,000, sliewing there could be very little difiiculty with regl1fd_ I° these mortgages. They had not, of course, taken any more Irish securitiesThe number of securities they held on Irish property was very smllui 1" also was the amount. He believed there was no reason to apprehend B117 ditficiilty with regard to the mortgages.

The report was then unanimou y adopted.

Mr. Ennuivn J alias moved “That, in accordance with the recommendition of the directors, a dividend of -ts. 6d. per share, tree ot income ta!be paid to the shareholders for the financial year ending the 30th OI November, 1887, in equal half-yearly payments on the let day of June and the 1st day of December."

Mr. Joniv Roor seconded the motion, which was at once adopted

Mr. CHARLIE Cussron moved the election as a London director of Mr. R. T. Rsikee, solicitor, of 24, Coleman-street, to fill the viicancf °c°“' sioned by the death of Mr. Wm. Orossman. They all deeply !‘f'8le“°d the loss of Mr. Crossman. In Mr. Baikes they would have a man_Ih0 would bring more than average ability and great diligence to the business of this company.

_ M1 1'""1"1"T°N (tho dfiputy-chairman) seconded the motion. 19mk' ing that Mr. ltaikes would ably till the position, being a g@11'1°m““°‘ considerable influence in his profession. ~

[graphic]

, The resolution was carried unanimously.

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

Mr. E. H. BURKKTI‘ proposed the re-election of Mr. Theodore Water-
house as a shareholders’ auditor for the current year. APPQINTMENTQ
Mr. A. C!-l.OSS.\IA. ' '

v seconded the motion, and it was at once adopted.

The CHAIRMAN announced that the directors had, in accordance with

the deed, appointed Mr. James J. Dsrley as directors’ auditor for the
current year.

On the motion of Mr. J . Fimxcis, seconded by Mr. H. MASTER, the sum_ of seventy-five guineas was voted to each of the auditors for his services during the past year.

The CHAIRMAN said he would now move a vote of thanks to the actuary and secretary, the solicitors, and staff of the oflice. The directors, shareholders, and iili concerned were very much indebted to them. He articulsrly wished to notice the services of Mr. _Rogers, the chief clerk of the me deP“-Ytmenti W Whom they were greatly indebted for escaping many ::;s:£,e:nd he was quite sure they all highly appreciated his valuable

The resolution was carried with cordielity.

Mr. F. llloGsnr (the actuary and secretary) said he was very much opllged tothem for the honour conferred upon him and the staff bythis vote o thanks. It Wes ii. stimulus to them to find their services gave satisfaction and were appreciated,

_ Mr. MARK WATERS returned thanks on behalf of the solicitor.-i, and said
it was their desire at all times to promote the welfare of the company,
gig £132 by proper attention to its legal affairs, but by bringing it new

[ocr errors]

d _ _ u_i y and eifective services in the chair. It was the
beiffe. 88 It was the interest, of every member of the society that hemlght
e ong spared to give them the benefit of his great services.

Mr. F. B. WARD seconded the motion, which was cordially adopted.
The CHAIRMA h '

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

NEW ORDERS, &c. l

Mr. Enwinp BLEAY.\IIRB, solicitor (of the flrm of Bleaymire & Shepherd), ot Penrith, has been appointed by the High Sheriif of Westmoreland_(lHr. John Edward Hasell) to be Under-Sheriif of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Blcaymire was admitted a solicitor in 1848. He is clerk to the county magistrates at Peiirith.

Mr. H.\nRY PEARSON BROCKLESUY, solicitor (of the firm of Brocklesby, Ley, &_Brocklesby), of 9, Walbrook, has been appointed a Commissioner for taking Alfidavits in and for the Sizpreme Courts of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in the Dominion 0 Canada.

Mr_.'1'uox.is Msnrmnav, solicitor and notary (of the firm of Ryland, Martineau, Carslake, & Goodwin), has received the honour of Knighthood on the laying by the Queen of the foundation-stone of the Birmingham New Law Courts. Sir T. Martineau is the eldest son oi Mr. Robert Martineau, of Birmingham and was born in 1828. H _

, e was educated at Edgbaston Proprietary School, and he was admitted a solicitor in 1851, havin served l '= rt cl

g 11.. a i es with the lute Mr. Arthur Rylund, with whom he was for many years in partnership, and on whose death he was appointed law clerk to the Guardians of the Birmingham Assay Olflce. Sir T. Martineau is an alderman for the borough of Birmingham, and he is now filling the office of mayor for the third time.

Mr. FRANCIS ROXBURGH, barrister, who has been appointed to act as Assistant-Judge of the Mayor's Court, is the only son of his Honour Judge Sir Francis lioxburgh, and was born in 1850. He was educated at 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 is a member of the South-Eastern Circuit.

Mr. IIAHRY Bavin, solicitor, of Wootton Bassett, has been appointed
by the High Sheriff of Wiltsliire (Mr. Clement Walker Heueage) to be
Under- Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Bevir is Clerk to
the Cricklade Board of Guardians. He was admitted a solicitor in 1872.

Mr. ALB!-‘.lt1‘ Ivssox, solicitor (of the firm of Oldman 8: Ivesou), of
Gainsborough, has been ap ointed by the High Sheriff of Lincolnshire
(Sir Hiclsmsn Bacon) to be hinder-Sheriff ot that county for the ensuing
year. Mr. Iveson was admitted a solicitor in 1860. Heis coroner for the
Kirton District of Lancashire and Clerk to the county magistrates and tho
Gainsborough Highway Board.

Mr. HARR\' Anaxsxoen Cora, solicitor, of Holywell, has been appointed
Registrar oi’ the Holywell County Court (Circuit No 29) in succession to

[graphic]

UNCLAIMED FUNDS IN CHANCERY. i
Notice to

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

the late Mr. David Pu h. Mr. Cope was admitted a solicitor in 1873. He
is clerk to the Holywefi Highway Board and to the county magistrates.

Mr. Srno Msnnun, barrister, of Allahabad, who has been appointed to
act as a Judge of the High Court oi the North-West Provinces of India,
was born in 1851. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter
Term, 1872.
Mr. Anrntn Srnici-isv. barrister, has been appointed Official Replorter
to the High Court of the N orth-West Provinces of India. Mr. Strac ey is
the second son of Sir John Strachey, Bart, and was born in 1858. He
was educated at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and hc was called to the bar at
the Inner Temple in June, 1883.
Hr. DAVID Lona Pines, solicitor, of Talley and Lampeter, has been
appointed by the High Sherifi of Carmarthenshire (Mr. Gerwyu J ones) to
be Under-Sherifl of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Price was
admitted asolicitor in 1855. He is clerk to the county magistrates and
Registrar of the Lampeter County Ooiirt.
Mr. WiLLi.iii ‘VAKBLIN, solicitor, of Presteign, has been appointed by
the High Sheriff of Radnorshire (Mr. Francis Lyndon Evelyn) to be Under-
Shcriif of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Wakelin is Registrar
of the Presteign County Court. He was admitted n solicitor in 1875.
Mr. Eoiunn lvsrxrsa HLTNNYBUN, solicitor, of Huntingdcn and Thrsp-
stone, lias been a pointed by the High Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and
Hi-ntingdonshire air. Henry Charles Geldart) to be Under-Sheriff of
those counties for the ensuing year. Mr. Hunnybun was admitted a soli-
citor in 1871. He is clcrk to the Huntingdon Board of Guardians,
Assessment Committee, School Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary
Authority, and Superintendent Registrar.

Lord Hsascnsu. has been appointed Chairman of the Currency Com-
mission.

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

a s in support of an alleged 7 Ea

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Whately), of 17, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, has beennppointed Solicitor to_ the
Ottoman Railway Co., on the resignation of his partner, hi}: Maxmilian
George Rooper. Mr. \Vhately was admitted a solicitor in l8i i.

Mr. JOHN BASELBY Tooxa Hams, solicitor (of the firm of Hansells 8:
Hales), Norwich, has been appointed Under-Sheriff for the county of

Norfolk by the High Slierifl, Sir Alfred Jodrell, Bart. Mr. Hales was

admitted a solicitor in 1874. [Substituted for lust week's notice] ouained at moms 6 e oiirt Fees, 188-l, rule 107 Stam s can be

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

regulil-ed)_ ate “"117 order of court aifecting the account (it specially
F

[ocr errors]

& Biirbidgc), 22, Cannon-street, Birmingham. The said Henry Sim

ous Burbidgc will continue to carry on the business st the above

[ocr errors]

WILLIAM DUNN and Roiisar Paras, solicitors (Dunn & Payne),
ome March 22

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mole & Stone), Derby, and sometime since at Ilkeston. March 25

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

i

« PreviousContinue »