« PreviousContinue »
TAIT, JANET, Ellison rd, Streatham Common, no occupation. Apr 13 at 1. 109, MITCHELL, FRANCIS HENRY, Oakleigh Park, Whetstone, Clerk. Barnet. Pet Victoria st, Westminster
March 28. Ord April 1 THOMAS, RICHARD, Blaenau Festiniog, Merionethshire, Painter. April 20 at 3.30. MORGAN. JOHN. Llangurig, Montgomeryshire, Farmer. Newtown. Pet March Star Cocoa House, Rhyl
4. Ord March 31 THOMPSON, SAMUEL, and NICHOLAS THOMPSON, Jarrow, Durham, Auctioneers. MOORE. SAMUEL, Rawtenstall, Lancashire, Draper. Blackburn. Pet April 1. April 16 at 10.31. Off Rec, Pink lane, Newcastle on Tyne
Ord April 2 TOMPKINS. HENRY. HENRY MICHAEL TOMPKINS, and WILLIAM TOMPKINS, Long- PEARSON, ALFRED, Milnsbridge, or Huddersfield, Mason. Huddersfield, Pet
ton, Staffordshire, Ironmongers. April 14 at 11. Off Rec, Newcastle under March 28. Ord March 31 Lyme
RIVERS, ROBERT LLOYD, Sheffield, Baker, Sheffield. Pet March 31. Ord VICKERY. JAMES HENRY, New Swindon, Bootmaker. April 12 at 11.30. Off Rec, March 31 Swindon
ROBERTS, HENRY, Beddgelert, Carnarvonshire, Farmer. Bangor. Pet March 26. WALKER, SAMUEL, Derby, out of business. April 13 at 2.30. Off Rec, St James' Ord April 1 ch brs. Derby
ROBINSON, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Fenchurch st, Watchmaker. High Court, WEBB, WILLIAM, Upper Hardres, Kent, Blacksmith. April 22 at 10.32, St Pet April 1. Ord April 1 George's st, Canterbury
SIMPELL, ANDREW, Birkenhead, Paperhanger. Birkenhead. Pet March 7. Ord WELLS, JASPER. Halesowen. Worcestershire, Lime Merchant. April 15 at 1.45. March 30 Talbot Hotel, Stourbridge
SMITH. GEORGE EDWARD. Manor pk, Essex, Civil Service Pensioner. High Court. WHEATLEY, THOMAS HENRY, and HARVARD ANDREW DAVIES. Liverpool, Pet Feb 21. Ord March 31
Photographic Chemists. April 15 at 2. Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liver. TURNER, ELIZABETH MATILDA, Newport, Mon, Cabinet Maker. Newport, Mon. pool
Pet March 18. Ord April 2 WHITFORD. JOHN RISDON, Cheltenham, Saddler. April 14 at 3. County Court, UMPLEBY. HARRIET ANN, Stockton on Tees, out of business. Stockton on Tees Cheltenham
and Middlesborough Pet March 30. Ord March 80 WILDBLOOD, EDMUND. Burslem, Stafford, Colour Manufacturer. April 13 at 3.15. VICKERY, JAMES HENRY, New Swindon, Boot Maker. Swindon. Pet March 29. Leopold Hotel, Burslem
Ord Aprili WINSON, THOMAS JOHN, Chorlton upon Medlock, Furniture Dealer. April 18 at WARING, ISAAC, Rosedale, East Yorkshire, out of business. Scarborough. Pet 12.' Off Rec, Ogden's cbbrs, Bridge st, Manchester
March 28. Ord March 30 WOODALL, JOHN LEIGH. formerly Neston, Cheshire, Chemist. April 20 at 2.30. WENDT, E. HENRY, no permanent residence in England, Gent. High Court. Off Rec. 49, Hamilton eg, Birkenhead
Pet Nov 13. Ord April 1 WOODWARD. BENJAMIN. Kidderminster, Commission Agent. April 15 at 11.45. WILDBLOOD, EDMUND, Burslem, Coloar Manufacturer. Hanley, Burslem, and Miller Corbett, Solicitor, Kidderminster
T sta Pet March 28. Ord April 2 YOUNG, HAZELDINE WILLIAM, Thanet, Kent, Blacksmith. April 15 at 12.30. 32, WINGROVE, CHARLES, Cambridge rd East, Livery S able Keeper. High Court. St George's st, Canterbury
Pet March 31. Ord April 1 The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the
WOODALL, JOHN LEIGH, Neston, Cheshire, Chemist. Birkenhead. Pet Feb 8. London Gazette of March 18.
Ord April 1 HENDY, THOMAS GODWIN, Reading, out of business. April 21 at 12. Queen's
Woods, EPHBAIM, New Barnet, Hertfordshire, Draper. Barnet. Pet March 24. Hotel, Reading
Ord April 1
WYNN, CHARLES CADWALDER, and WALTER CHARLES WYNN, Nottingham, PlasBAKER, JOHN, Dudley, Worcester, Boot Manufacturer. Dudley. Pet March 29.
terers Nottingham. Pet March 14. Ord April 2 Ord March 31
The following Amended Notice is substituted for that published in the BENNETT, CHARLES HENRY, Swansea, Licensed Victualler. Swansea.
London Gazette of March 15. March 29. Ord March 30
READHEAD, TUOMAS. Messingham, Lincolnshire, Coal Dealer. Great Grimsby BLOXAM, MATTHEW, Dorset eq, Marylebone, Surgeon. High Court. Pet April
Pet March 9. Ord March 10
March 31. Ord March 31
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
Baines, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. EDGINTON, JOHN, Wolverhampton, Grocer. Wolverhampton. Pet March 24. DAY.-March 28. the wife of J. N. Da'Russell Day, of Wood-green, barrister-atOrd March 31
law, of a daughter. Evans, FDWARD, Alton, Hampshire, Livery Stable Keeper. Winchester. Pet FRYER. --April 3, the wife of G. E. S. Fryer, of the Inner Temple, barrister-atMarch 29. Ord Aprll 1
law, of a son. EVANS, WILLIAM JONES, Mountain Ash, Glamorganshire, Draper. Aberdare. MACDONALD.-March 27, at West Leigham-court-road, Streatham, the wife of Pet March 14. Ord March 26
Thomas Macdonald, barrister-at-law, of a son. GALLUSSER, JACOB, Bread st, Lace Manufacturer. High Court. Pet March 9. STUBBS. - March 27, at Cranham, East Molesey, the wife of Charles Stubbs, Ord April 1
LL D., barrister-at-law, of a son. GARRETT, ROBERT THOMAS, Leamington, Shop Fitter. Warwick. Pet March 26. SWORDER. --April 3, at Hertford, the wife of Thomas J. Sworder, solicitor, of a Ord April 2
daughter. GLENDENING, WILLIAM, Redruth, Cornwall, Fancy Goods Dealer. Truro. Pet
CLARKE-COLLINS.- March 22, at Brownswood-park, N., George Rochfort Clarke, Ord March 30
harrister-at-law, to Alice Louisa, daughter of the late James Collins, of
Ord March 31
FEW.-April 4, at Lavington, Putney Heath, Charles Few, of Surrey-street,
Strand, aged 70. April 1
LEITH. - April 4, at Dorset-square, Regent's-park, John Farley Leith, Esq., Q.C, HICKS, AB ALOM, Dover, Publican. Canterbury. Pet April 2. Ord April 2
aged 18. Higgs, EDWARD HOOD, Braybrooke Rectory, Northamptonshire, Clerk in Holy
SHARP.- March 29, at Culverden-hill, Tunbridge Wells, John Sharp, barristerOrders. Leicester. Pet March 2. Ord Marcb 30
at-law, aged 69. HUNTER, WILLIAM, Lincoln, Fruiterer. Lincolu. Pet March 31. Ord March 31
TILSLEY - April 1, Hugh Tisley, solicitor, of North Petherton, Somerset, aged JOSEPH, ABRAHAM, Birmingham, Clothier. Birmingham. Pet March 4. Ord
April 2 Kina, COCHIN VINCENT, Brighton, Bicycle Agent. Brighton. Pet April 2. Ora The Subscription to the SOLICITORS' Journal is— Town, 266. bd.; KNAPP. CLEMENT ALLEN, ERNEST EDWARD KNAPP, and HANNAH COLMAN, Toft
Country, 288. 6d. ; with the WREKLY REPORTER, 538. Payment in adMonks, Norfolk, Farmers. Gt Yarmoutb. Pet March 14. Ord March 31 LANGWORTHY, EDWARD MARTIN, no permanent residence in England. High
vance includes Double Numbers and Postage. Subscribers can have Court. Pet June 17, Ord April 1 LEE, ALFRED TIMOTHY, Stroud, Fruiterer. Gloucester. Pet March 14. Ord
their Voluri8 bound at the office-cloth, 28. 6d., half law calf, 5s. 6d. March 31 LINES, FRANCIS JOHN, Monkton Deverill, Wilts, Innkeeper. Frome. Pet March
29. Ord April 2 MACEY, JOHN S., Hastings, Licensed Victualler. Hastings. Pet Feb 23. Ord
CONTENTS. March 31
LEGAL NEWS MCGRATH, THOMAS, Abergavenny, Tailor. Tredegar. Pet March 9. Ord THE LAND TRANSFER BILL ........ 374 COURT PAPERS. March 31
“ FOR HER SEPARATE USE"
WINDING-UP NOTICES ............... 384 MILLER, FRANK H., Beckenham, Kent, Builder. Croydon. Pet Feb 18. Ord PENDING LEGISLATION
381 CREDITORS' NOTICES March 29
383 BANKRUPTCY NOTICES
399 ........ 384
EDE AND SON,
MAKERS, The Faculty pronounce it “the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or
BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT, Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."
Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c. all palates, keeps for years in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such ROBES POR QUEEN'S COUNSBL AND BARRISTERS. Mixtures. Made instantaneously with boiling water, a te spoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny.
SOLICITORS' GOWNS. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when
Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town Clerks,
and Clerks of the Peace.
(HOWARD'S PATENT.) 1,000 Leaf Book, 5s, 6d.
500 Leaf Book, 3s. 6d.
THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OUT.
WODDERSPOON & CO., 7, SERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET,
LINCOLN'S INN, W.O.
CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.
liable to the solicitor. But " usage makes the husband liable to In the Solicitors' Journal. York (deceased), Re, Atkinson v.
indemnify whoever, on the part of the wife, has properly incurred
Powell Ainslie's Trade-Mark, Re
394 expense by retaining the solicitor to prepare a settlement.” That 894 Appleby, Re 396
is to say, the rule as to the costs of a settlement corresponds with Cooke's Estate, Re
395 Cutler v. North London Railway
In the Weekly Reporter. that relating to the costs of a lease, which is prepared by the lessor's Co. 396 Allcard y. Skinner
484 solicitor, the lessor being entitled to be recouped the costs by the Godfrey, Ex parte, Re Lazarus...
Hem worth Free Grammar School, (trepe, Ex parte, Re Grepe, ..
lessee (Grissell v. Robinson, 3 Bing. N. C. 10). The obligation of the 396 Harris v. Rothwell 992 Lumley v. Simmons
422 husband, therefore, did not rest on any liability on his part for his Hatchard v. Mege
896 New City Constitutional Club Co, Ladywell Mining Co. v. Brookes.
In re, Ex parte Purssell
wife's ante-nuptial debts, but on the " usage” that he should inLadywell Mining Co. v. Huggons 393 Tosh v. North British Building Mutrie v. Binney
demnify anyone, whether the wife, or her parent, or a person in loco 394 Society
parentis, who incurred the costs of the settlement. As a matter
of fact, this “ usage,” on which the husband's liability depends, The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. remains unaltered, and as the Married Women's Property Act LONDON, APRIL 16, 1887.
10), there seems to be no alteration effected by the Act which could remove the grounds on which this usage was originally
established. It could not have been based on the fact that the CURRENT TOPICS.
gave the husband an interest in the property of his wife, for AT THE TIME of going to press the cause lists for the Easter the object of the settlement was, of course, in all cases to exclude Sittings of the court, commencing on Tuesday next, are not pub- and vary this legal right. lished. The appeals will number about 170, and the causes and matters before the five judges of the Chancery Division will Aggregate a total of upwards of 700.
WE REPORT elsewhere the judgment delivered by Judge LushINGTON at the Croydon County Court on the 5th inst., laying down
the rule that in future unqualified paid agents are not to be THE ATTENTION of solicitors practising in the county of Lancaster allowed to appear or address the court. The judgment deals should be directed to the order of the Lord Chancellor, which will ably and exhaustively with the subject, and we trust that its be found in another column, under which all causes in the effect will be to induce the other county court judges throughChancery Division commenced in either of the district registries of out the country to place a similar check on an abuse which of Liverpool or Manchester are to be marked for Mr. Justice late years has been rapidly growing. It may be useful to subKEKEWICH. This order is made under the powers of the new join a note of the statutory provisions bearing on the subject : clause of rule 9 of order 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 1 Vict. c. 73, ss. 2, 36). Unqualified which was added by the Rules of December, 1886 (ante, p. 140). persons act in contravention of these sections and commit a By ord. 35, r. 6a, the district registrar of each of the places above contempt of court. Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. named is to act as chief clerk, registrar, and taxing master, so that 26). Unqualified persons act in contravention of this section and Mr. Justice KEKEWICH will in effect have the control of a large commit a contempt of court and incur a penalty. Stamp Act, amount of chamber bueiness which will be transacted, not under 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97, s. 59). Unqualified persons act in his own eye in London, but at Liverpool and Manchester. The contravention of this section and incur a penalty. See also secgeneral effect of the new order will be to give to suitors who tion 60, in contravention whereof these persons draw affidavits, commence their actions in the district registries of Manchester and &c. County Courts Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 10), refers Liverpool something very nearly approaching to a preference over to appearance" by himselt or his attorney." County Courts all other Chancery suitors. It is obvious that Mr. Justice KEKEWICH Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, s. 10), as to who may appear in a will after a time be almost exclusively employed in trying cases county court. It seems clear that the " leave of the judge" should from Lancashire, which would otherwise have been distributed be a special permission in each particular case, and ought not to be among the five judges of the Chancery Division. So long as he given to enable a person to infringe an Act of Parliament, or to bas any Lancashire cases to try, he will never be in need of a incur penalties, or to commit a contempt of court. County Courts
well be that the cases so marked for Mr. Justice Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, 8. 16), refers to appearance of KEKEwich will take away a sufficient number from the other defendant either in person or by some person " duly authorized” indges of the Chancery Division so as to have the same effect upon on his behalf. This “duly authorized person must surely be their lists as the exercise of the right of transfer would have had, either a solicitor or a barrister, or some person who has obtained hint on the other hand there is a possibility that while Mr. Justice leave from the judge. See also section 17, which refers to apKEKEWICh is trying heavy cases his four colleagues will be getting pearance in person or by some person duly authorized to appear deeper and deeper into arrear. the Lord Chancellor, and it may be that the present new arrangeViet. o. 57, 8. 2). "No person other than a solicitor shall be Content is only a step towards the appointment of another judge of the entitled to have or recover any fee or reward for appearing or Chancery Division. Whether this be so or not, the new departure acting on behalf of any other party in any proceedings in a county can only be looked upon as an experiment, the beneficial result of court.” which, to Chancery suitors at large, is donbtful, and which will most likely create jealousies in the minds of the large majority of suitors whose cases are to be practically postponed to those of their
THE CASE OF Re Cooke's Estate, which we report in another more favoured competitors for a hearing.
column, has brought to light one of the many unsettled questions with which our law abounds. So long ago as 1800 it was decided by Lord Eldon, at Nisi Prius (Male v. Roberts, 3 Esp. 163), that
the capacity of a person to bind himself by contract must be arising out of, the Married Women’s? Property Act, 1882." We subsequent cares bearing upon the point have been very few, the
THERE SEEMS to be no end to the questions suggested by, and I decided by the law of the country where the contract arises. The correspondent, whose letter we print in another column, whether Simonin v. Maillac” (1 Sw. & Tr. 253) that “ in general the While tact may not have altered the well-established rule' as to lia- personal competency or incompetency of individuals to contract has bility for the costs of preparing a marriage settlementale we do not been held to depend upon the laten of the place where the contract find outono (13 W. R. 161, 17 C. B. N. S. 533)" is considered, it will accepted by many leading text-writers. In the year 1877, be found that the basis of the rule laid down in that case with however, the Court of Appeal decided the case of Sottomayor v settlement is to be considered that of the lady or her parent, as me pared to the liability for costs is this: The retainer to prepare the De Barros (26 W. R. 465, 3 P. D. 1), in which the only question
was whether two persons, who were Portuguese subjects and
transfer. It may
were, by the law of Portugal, prohibited from intermarrying, could contract a valid marriage in England; and it was held that they
THE LAND TRANSFER BILL. could not. In the course of their judgment the Lords Justices
II. said: “It is a well-recognized principle of law that the question We resume the subject we left off with in our last week's issueof personal capacity to enter into any contract is to be decided by the law of domicile”; and, later on, “ The laws of a country namely, the extent to which deeds will be necessary under the where a marriage is solemnized must alone decide all questions system proposed by the Bill... Vendors may perhaps be found to relating to the validity of the ceremony by which the contend that covenants for title are superseded by clause 18, submarriage is alleged to have been constituted ; but, as in other clause 1. That clause provides that “a registered charge or contracts, so in that of marriage, personal capacity must depend transfer shall have effect as a conveyance by deed, and the Conon the law of domicile.” Now, with regard to the particular veyancing Acts, 1881, 1882, shall applý accordingly.” Now contract of marriage, the decision in Sottomayor v. De Barros section 7 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, causes the several wellwas completely in accordance with the opinions expressed in known covenants for title, “ by the person who conveys and is Brook v. Brook (9 W. R. 461, 9 H. L. Cas. 193) ; but the expressed to convey as,” &c., to be implied “in a conveyance" passages quoted above from the judgment of the Court of which by section 2, sub-section (v.), means a conveyance by deed). Appeal are considerably wider than was necessary for the But, unless the existing forms under the Act of 1875 are so far decision of the case. It may be that no distinction in principle beneficial owner,” for instance (a liberty denied by the present
modified as to allow of a transfer being expressed as made by“ a can be drawn between the marriage contract and any other contract in this respect, and that, as in the case of marriage, so in the G. R. 58 and form 23), a solicitor advising a purchaser should be case of other contracts, the validity of the contract" (except in careful to keep on the safe side. respect of the formal acts necessary to be gone through for the
II.—THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. purpose of manifesting it) is to be determined by the lex domicilii. Prior, however, to the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Sottomayor
We also, last week, referred to the bulk of the literature that at v. De Barros, it seems that the consensus of opinion was in the present exists on the subject of registration of title as a reason for opposite direction. In the case of Re Cooke's Estate Mr. Justice abstaining from discussing the subject in its general aspect now. Stirling has held himself bound by the opinions expressed in But as very possibly some of our readers (whose engagements in the Sottomayor v. De Barros, and has accordingly decided that the present leave them little leisure to study a future so remote as the question of the validity of a marriage settlement executed prior to establishment of registration of title appeared but a short while the marriage of a domiciled English woman with a domiciled ago to be) may have omitted to take note of that literature when Frenchman is to be determined according to the lex domicilii, it came out, and may now wish to be reminded where it is to be and that consequently, as the lady was an infant when she entered found, we now append an account of some of the principal works into the contract, it was not binding upon her. The state of the that have been published upon the subject of late years. The list law thus disclosed is far from satisfactory, and it is to be hoped does not pretend to be exhaustive ; if any omissions have been made that the Court of Appeal may soon have an opportunity of author- we shall be glad to hear of them, meanwhile we believe that the itatively dealing with the general question.
list will supply enough mental fodder for busy men to go on with, at least till our next issue; and may, perhaps, also be found to
contain a few references that will be new even to the leisurely SOME DOUBT appears to have existed whether covenants in
student :restraint of trade are divisible with regard to time—that is, 1850. Report of Registration and Conveyancing Commission. (Specially
ENGLISH whether, supposing them to be reasonable for a certain length of
valuable for full fac simile reproduction of maps and indices time, but unreasonable beyond, they can be enforced for the earlier
used in Belgium to define boundaries and record dealings.), period, although invalid for the later. The matter is, of course, 1857. Report of Registration of Title Commission. (Advocates views of great importance, for, if the law decided against such division,
which have been accepted of late years only. Very full appena covenant that has been for any reason drawn too strictly would
dix by Mr. Wilson (200 pages) setting forth his scheme.)
1859. be void altogether. It is satisfactory, therefore, to note the recent
J. M. Ludlow. Stock, Share, and Land Registers. Juridical decision of Mr. Justice North in Baines v. Geary (ante, p. 363).
Society's Papers, 18th April. (Much information as to the dis
tinction between the three.) In this case the covenant was entered into by a mill-carrier with 1862. E. P. Wolstenholme. Simplification of title to land, &c. Juridical his employer, and bound him not to serve for his own benefit any
Society's Papers. 10th March. (Exposes the paradox of customers whom his employer, or his successors or assigns, might
“indefeasible title," and gives outline of a plan for simplifica
tion of title without registration.) at any time have. The business was assigned, and the milk Joshua Williams. The true remedy, &c. Juridical Society's carrier, who had left the employment just before the assignment,
Papers. 24th March. (Suggests numerous changes of detail, solicited the custom of the old customers, and an injunction was
and registry of deeds.) accordingly prayed against him. To the contention that the 1869-70. Report of Land Transfer Commission.
Lord Westbury's Act (25 & 26 Vict. c. 53). covenant was unreasonable inasmuch as it extended to customers 1872. obtained after the defendant had left the employment, and was,
Return as to Registration of Title in the Australasian Colonies,
(Full text of Torrens ” Acts, and much information as to therefore, bad altogether, Mr. Justice North replied that it was, at
their working.) any rate, reasonable with regard to those who were customers
Remarks on the Land Transfer Question ; reprint while the defendant was in the employment; and holding, on the
from Law Journal. (Advocates compulsion and registration of authority of Nichols v. Stretton (7 Beav. 42), that the covenant
fee simples only. Sketch of suggested enactment.)
Lord Selborne's Bill. was divisible in regard to time, he granted the injunction so far G. Sweet. Impediments to the Transfer of Land. Paper read to as related to these. This is certainly on the side of reason, and
Juridical Society. 19th March. (Advocates registration of removes a pitfall into which those who have to frame such
title, shewing all subsisting rights, with detail of how it may covenants have been in danger of falling. That they are divisible 1874.
be done.) in respect of space was decided in Price v. Green (16 M. & W. 346).
G. Sweet. Observations on Land Titles and Transfer Bill. Advo
cates compulsory registration of possessory titles at public cost
with outline of enactment.) 1875. Lord Cairns' Land Transfer Act.
Land Transfer Act, 1875. (Text-book, with introMr. Arthur Arnold has written to Lord Salisbury on behalf of the Free
ductory chapter (36 pages) and practical suggestions (20 pages) Land League, pointing out that “in 1869 Lord Clarendon obtained
d.) from her Majesty's representative at Berlin a report upon the tenure and
Sir Robert M. Torrens. Essay published by Cobden Club (6d.) transfer of land in Prussia, which has long since become obsolete by the
Very full and readable account of the chief points notable in passing of the law of 1872.
the Australian system. established a system of conveyance by registration of title, with proce
The practical results of that law, which 1878-79. Report, Mr. Osborne Morgan's Committee. (Incidentally, dure closely following that adopted in the Australian colonies, appear in
interesting evidence as to the Scotch Registry of deeds.)
1881. Return on Registration of Title in the Australasian Colonies. (Conrequesting that before the Land Transfer billis tonsidered untrommittee 1885. Dukënues Marlborough. Transfer of Land, Fortnightly become of the House of Lords Lord Salisbury will obtain a report upon the method and operation of the Prussian system.
April. (Advocates mainly the system of confirmation of possessory titles adopted in the Chancellor's preseut Bill.)
Sir Horace Davey. Letters to the Times, September. (Advocates
F. Werner, Berlin. (Official edition of law substantially the compulsory registration of possessory title and curtailment of
same as the Torrens system ; with full introduction, notes, and settlements.)
appendices, with model register and forms.) F. H. Colt. The Land Transfer Question. (Similar to former 1873. Annuaire de la legislation étrangère. Paris. Article on the above pamphlet with corrections up to date.)
Prussian law, by P. Gide. (At the Inner Temple Library only.) J. Powell. How to make simple the Transfer of Land. (Full 1886. D. H. Ohmstead. New York. Land Transfer Reform. (Advocates review of history of law and exposition of present system;
registration of deeds, to prepare for registration of title.) advocates registry of deeds with no notice of trusts.)
C. Gide. Etude sur l'Act Torrens. Paris. (Very lucid disserta1886. Incorporated Law Society. Statement on the Land Laws. (Full
tion on the Act, and entertaining account of the agitation in account of modern history since 1828, and careful review of
III.-CONFIRMATION OF TITLES.
1. Why is it wanted ?-To appreciate the value of the new Reviewed—SOLICITORS'JOURNAL, Jan. 30 continuously to March mode of obtaining an absolute title out of a possessory one in
13; Law Times, Jan. 30; Law Journal, Feb. 13" (by F. H. stituted by the present Bill it will be necessary to explain briefly
the reasons why the absolute, qualified, and possessory titles of general scope as the last.)
the Act of 1875 each failed to give satisfaction to those who Reviewed – SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, April 10 and 17; Law Times, applied for them. The grounds of objection in practice to each
April 17 and May 1; Law Journal, May 15 (F. H. Colt). of these are as follow:-
(i.) The absolute title was so difficult to obtain that it was introduction; advocates compulsion; some detail of proposed useless to apply for it in contemplation of a sale, for it increased scheme. Appendix as to systems of land transfer in other the expenses and delays of the immediate transaction, without countries.)
sensibly attracting buyers or increasing the prices obtainable, J. Topham. Essay on Registration of Titles. (Reviews present while it was extravagant to apply for it after a sale, or, indeed, at
system ; advocates registry of abstracts and deeds, with
any other time, owing to the remoteness of the occasion of H. W. Elphinstone on the Transfer of Land. January Law benefit.
Quarterly. (General considerations; advocates compulsion ; (ii.) The qualified title was, in its result, a sort of condemnation
cover up negatively in conditions of sale, would be not unlikely to (Advocates preparatory changes in the law, and compulsion on deter a purchaser when positively blazoned forth on the forefront death; observations on registering settled land, restrictive of the certificate of title. Landowners naturally objected to standing covenants, mortgages, maps, and doubts whether local regis- up in a white sheet for these peccadilloes, and so the qualified titles
tries are needed.)
were even more disliked than the absolute, especially considering parison of English and Australian experience, and substantive that the original application was in all cases obliged, by section 9 of plan for registry of title without cost or compulsion).
the Act, to be (in form, at any rate) for an absolute title; so that they Reviewed SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 11th December ; Law cost as much trouble and money and time to obtain as the absolute,
Quarterly Review, January (1887).
and were of even more doubtful advantage when obtained.
(iii.) The possessory title was (as already shewn in our last Dec. 26 (1885) to Jan 16.
issue) found to be far dearer than it ought to have been, and, at Law Times-Registration of Titles, May 29 to July 27.
that price, was certainly not worth the outlay. In connection Law Journal— Prospects of Land Registration, Dec 18. Westminster Review—Now View of Registration of Title to Land, inertie which has encumbered the progress of registration all
with these possessory titles, a curious instance of the pure vis July. A Dialogue between Doctor and Student, &c., &c. (Failure of Land along was given to Mr. 0. Morgan's Committee by a well-known
Transfer Act due to its too great care of dormant claims, and solicitor. He had ordered that all simple conveyances for the consequent expenses and delays).
future should be registered with possessory title, and for some Reviewed-SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, Jan. 9. 1887. W. H. Townsend.
time supposed that his orders were being carried out. Having Some Practical Observations on the Land Transfer Question. (Various detailed suggestions for registry of occasion to inquire after a particular case, he found that in no case
had it been done. The clerks did what they were accustomed to AUSTRALIAN.
do, and then put the several matters aside for a more convenient Acts. Are all drawn on the same model: the Torrens Act of South season (Evidence, No. 1149). It is to be hoped the "confirma
Australia (1857) as amended in 1861. They are very full, and tion” will prove more attractive.
shortening of the period of prescription to five years where posses1861, South Australia. Report, Evidence (106 pp.), and Appendix (20 pp.) sory or qualified title has been registered, in consideration of public
and private notice to all whom it may concern, and the compensa1864. South Australia. Return as to certificates recalled for mistakes tion provided by the assurance fund in all cases of mistake, coupled in parcels. (Map and description of error appended in each with the applicant's affidavit evidence, and his liability personally
in damages (clause 10, sub-clause 5) it any loss results. The 1873. South Australia, Report, Evidence (84 pp.), Appendix (50 pp.)— applicant pays all costs of reasonable petitions against confirma 1881-83. New South Wales. Returns (very fuli) as to operations of registry; tion. 1885. Queensland. Return as to work of office ever since 1861, followed found in practice to be-how many petitions will usually be
by yearly reports on same model, with commentary by registrar. presented in opposition, of which he will have to pay the costs as Victoria. Report, Evidence (200 pp.) — Practical Working of a reasonable" Now, apart from the question of boundaries, it is not (The above papers are at the Colonial Office Library. There are likely that the public and private notices will evoke many opposing
probably others relating to Taemania, New Zealand, and petitions of a reasonable" character. Public notices are merely Western Australia that we have not had the opportunity of guarantees of good faith, and will not be likely to produce any perusing. It is impossible to exaggerate the value of these records oppositions. The private notices could hardly be served on anyone
licensperience, which cover the whole ground, and supply prac- likely to object; for they could only be served upon the persons Melbourne Daily Telegraph, Oct. 13, 1884. Report on process of named in the applicant's title deeds (who, being his own prederegistering old titles. By Mr. Sandford.
cessors in title, would seldom object), or upon registered incumCanada. J. Å. Mason.
Land Transfer Reform. Toronto, 1884. brancers-prescribed by the Biil—(who, as their rights are Collects much information as to Torrens system, and advocates protected as such by tắe Land Transfer Act, s. 7, sub-section 1, Ontertain, Manitoba, and North-West Territory Legislatures have would not trouble themselves much), or upon “ cautioners," or h. etablished the 'Torrens system (without compulsion, during the would be easily arranged with previously in all cases where theur
claims were not substantial and hostile ; where they were, of FORBIGN.
course the matter could not go on, nor should it. 1872. Prussia. Grundbuch und Hypotheken Gezetze vom 5 Mai, 1872.
The affidavit to be made on an application for confirmation is
witnesses should attend at Great James-street instead of being per- plaintiff's patent there existed in the library of the Patent Office two
required to contain (clause 7, sub-clause 2) a statement to the inquiry last year in which I succeeded in recovering back the overeffect that the deponent has made due inquiry into the title. Thus charge for length, but failed as to the items for oath and exhibit, i the affidavit will require to be made by a professional lawyer, or the am by no means sure that a further appeal would have been wise if statement will be a farce. This being so, it will be well to make permitted, to say nothing of the fact that the real point raised by
the argument of the judges—viz., the “reasonableness” of paying the application immediately after the purchase, when the state of the same oath fees inside as one would have to pay outside--would the title is fresh in the mind of the purchaser's solicitor.
have had to be disposed of by mandamus whatever the ultimate On the whole, it would appear that if too much advertising is result of the particular action. The question about to be raised by not insisted upon by the board, this process will be cheap and andamus deals with something like thirty thousand half-crowns per effectual. If the present rules are followed (G. R. 6) the appli- annum paid to the registrar, which, among other things, means that rant must be the owner of a fee simple in possession, or have commissioners for oaths (who have had to pay for their privilege) power to dispose of the fee; and so the persons (if any) dispossessed are quietly. deprived of a yearly sum of £3,000 to £4,000! The hy mistaken confirmation would only be persons whose interests great question, however, is the needless personal attendance of town
witnesses between prescribed hours at a building altogether out of are remote, as to whom it is now generally admitted that money the run of the public offices, in the face of the Act giving them the compensation is adequate. In fact, under the Settled Land Act, option and convenience of going before a neighbouring commoney value is all that such persons can make sure of even now. missioner.
FRANCIS K. MUNTON. But when we approach the question of confirmation of boundaries City, April 6. it will have to be remembered that the notices will be served on a very different class of persons than in the case of titles. Under Lord Westbury's Act it was found that, the rule requir
COSTS OF MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS. ing all reasonable expenses of objectors to be paid by the applicant
[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] (a rule which it is impossible not to retain), every objection to a Sir, -A solicitor is retained by a lady's father to draw her bouadary was contested with the greatest pertinacity ; in fact, one marriage settlement of personalty, which is one of the ordinary solicitor of experience thought that almost a third of the expenses character. of registration under that Act (which were very heavy) was due to He duly prepares the settlement, and after the marriage sends in this cause; and another averred that it was cheaper for applicants to the bill to the husband. relinquish all disputed boundaries rather than fight the unequal
The husband objects to pay the bill, alleging that his wife's father battle. Under the present Bill, however, compensation will be
is the person liable. given to persons deprived of their boundaries, which, no doubt, the bill – happen during the year 1986.
All the incidents—the retainer, the marriage, and the delivery of will make a difference; still, this fact will hardly disentitle an Under such circumstances, is the husband liable for the bill, and objector to his costs wherever the resistance was plausible in itself. does the case of Helps v. Clayton, decided before the Married From these considerations it will be a matter requiring grave con Woman's Property Act, 1882, govern the matter ?
TABELLIO. sideration whether proprietors should ever be advised to apply for April 12. “ confirmation" of boundaries except where they are able to
[See observations under head of “Current Topics.” -Ed. S. J.] arrange beforehand with their neighbours that no objections shall be taken.
A more difficult question in connection with boundaries would appear to be still in store-namely, how to accommodate registration to the continual changes, often gradual and even imperceptible
CASES OF LAST WEEK. in their progress, that take place in the configuration of estates,
HARRIS v. ROTHWELL-O. A. No. 2, 5th April. and how to provide a readier means than the office has yet suc- Patent-Prior PUBLICATION DEPOSIT OF SPECIFICATION ceeded in providing for the not uncommon exigency of a sale in
LANGUAGE IN PATENT OFFICE LIBRARY. lots.
This was an appeal from a decision of Chitty, J., the question being whether the deposit of a specification in the German language in the library of the Patent Office so as to be accessible to the public constituted
such a prior publication as to render invalid a patent subsequently NEW ORDERS, &c.
obtained in this country. The plaintiff was the assignee of a patent HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISION.
granted in 1880 for improvements in knitting machines. In 1877 and
1879 certain specifications and drawings of German patents for knitting LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRIES.
machines were deposited in the London Patent Office for public inspec
tion. The specifications were in the German language, and it was I, Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of admitted that if they had been English they would, together with the Great Britain, in pursuance of the Rules of the Supreme Court, drawings, have conveyed sufficient information to a competent workman day of April, 1887, until further order, every cause or matter in German specifications in the list of foreign patents, and they were referring December, 1886, do hereby order that on and after the eighteenth to enable him to carry out the invention which was the subject of the thể Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice commenced in to as knitting machines. A foot-note was appended to the list, stating the District Registry of Liverpool or the District Registry of that the specifications, as well as the list of applications, might be con Manchester shall be marked with the name of the Honourable Mr. sulted at the free public library of the Patent Office. The German speciJustice Kekewich, one of the judges of the Chancery Division.
fications had been actually open to inspection in the Patent Office library, The 5th day of April, 1887.
the one during about two years and a half, and the other during about six weeks previously to the date of the plaintiff's application. Chitty, J., held that the German specifications had, under the circumstances, been so published in this country, prior to the date of the plaintiff's patent, as to
have become part of the stock of common knowledge. The drawings and CORRESPONDENCE.
specifications, having been placed in the Patent Office library and made
accessible to anyone who chose to go there, it was not necessary to shew THE MIDDLESEX REGISTRY.
that any person actually did go to the library and inspect them. The fact
that the specifications were in German was immaterial, as it could not be [To the Editor oj the Solicitors' Journal.]
assumed that the information was given in a language which was Sir,—The letter of Mr. G. P. Jackson discloses a very grave state
unintelligible to the public (see the case reported ante, p. 27).
The Court of Appeal COTTON, LINDLEY, and Lopes, L.JJ.) afirmed any public department should be permitted to allow its official whether, under the circumstances, the plaintift's assignor was the time
LINDLEY, L.J., said that the question was in substance references to fall into the condition he describes, and thereby practi- and first inventor of the invention. cally limit inquiry to a "private” book for 'searches in which a facie cese by proving the patents, and he thus threw the burden of proge way to incorporate this question into the intended application Form of the invention in this country, or some prior publication in this center case mitted to depose to a deed before a London commissioner, It will interest the profession to know that this very day my annexed, contained a description of the plaintiff's invention;
copies of two German specifications, each of which, with the drawings made to the Queen's Bench Division for a rule nisi. with regard to the had been cihention bout hee weeks. Their mistence in the library was not