Page images
PDF
EPUB

TAIT, JANET, Elison rd, Streatham Common, no occupation. Apr 13 at 1. 109,
Victoria st, Westminster

THOMAS, RICHARD, Blaenau Festiniog, Merionethshire, Painter. April 20 at 3.30.
Star Cocoa House. Rhyl
THOMPSON. SAMUEL, and NICHOLAS THOMPSON, Jarrow. Durham, Auctioneers.
April 16 at 10.30. Off Rec. Pink lane, Newcastle on Tyne
TOMPKINS. HENRY, HENRY MICHAEL TOMPKINS, and WILLIAM TOMPKINS, Long-
ton, Staffordshire, Ironmongers. April 14 at 11. Off Rec, Newcastle under
Lyme
VICKERY, JAMES HENRY, New Swindon, Bootmaker. April 12 at 11.30. Off Rec,
Swindon
WALKER, SAMUEL, Derby, out of business. April 13 at 2.30. Off Rec, St James'
chbrs. Derby

WEBB. WILLIAM, Upper Hardres, Kent, Blacksmith. April 22 at 10. 32, St
George's st, Canterbury

WELLS, JASPER, Halesowen. Worcestershire, Lime Merchant. April 15 at 1.45.
Talbot Hotel, Stourbridge

WHEATLEY, THOMAS HENRY, and HARVARD ANDREW DAVIES, Liverpool,
Photographic Chemists. April 15 at 2. Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liver
pool
WHITFORD, JOHN RISDON, Cheltenham, Saddler. April 14 at 3. County Court,
Cheltenham

WILDBLOOD, EDMUND. Burslem, Stafford, Colour Manufacturer. April 13 at 3.15.
Leopold Hotel, Burslem

WINSON, THOMAS JOHN, Chorlton upon Medlock, Furniture Dealer. April 18 at
12. Off Rec, Ogden's chbrs, Bridge st, Manchester
WOODALL, JOHN LEIGH, formerly Neston, Cheshire, Chemist. April 20 at 2.30.
Off Rec, 48, Hamilton sq, Birkenhead
WOODWARD. BENJAMIN. Kidderminster, Commission Agent. April 15 at 11.45.
Miller Corbett, Solicitor, Kidderminster
YOUNG, HAZELDINE WILLIAM, Thanet, Kent, Blacksmith. April 15 at 12.30. 32,
St George's st, Canterbury

The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of March 18.
HENDY, THOMAS GODWIN, Reading, out of business. April 21 at 12. Queen's
Hotel, Reading

[blocks in formation]

BLOXAM, MATTHEW, Dorset sq, Marylebone, Surgeon. High Court. Pet April 2. Ord April 2

BOARDMAN, FREDERICK JOHN. Clee, Lincoln, Fisherman. Great Grimsby. Pet March 31. Ord March 31

BULPITT, CHARLES EDWARD, Southwark st, Potato Salesman, High Court. Pet March 21. Ord April i

CHRISTOPHERSON, RONDEAU, Higher Tranmere, Cheshire, Coal Merchant. Birkenhead. Pet March 28. Ord March 30

CORNELIUS, JAMES, Weston super Mare, Cook and Confectioner. Bridgwater. Pet April 1. Ord April 1

EDGINTON, JOHN, Wolverhampton, Grocer. Wolverhampton. Pet March 24. Ord March 31

EVANS, FDWARD, Alton, Hampshire, Livery Stable Keeper. Winchester. Pet March 29. Ord April 1

EVANS, WILLIAM JONES, Mountain Ash, Glamorganshire, Draper. Aberdare. Pet March 14. Ord March 26

GALLUSSER, JACOB, Bread st, Lace Manufacturer. High Court. Pet March 9. Ord April 1

GARBETT, ROPERT THOMAS, Leamington, Shop Fitter. Warwick. Pet March 26. Ord April 2

GLENDENING, WILLIAM, Redruth, Cornwall, Fancy Goods Dealer. Truro. Pet March 29. Ord March 31

GOODLIFF, RICHARD, Bedford, no occupation. Northampton. Pet March 30. Ord March 30

GREEN, JOSEPH, Nottingham, Baker. Nottingham. Pet March 28. Ord April 1 HALE, EDWARD, Pontypool, General Dealer. Newport, Mon. Pet March 31. Örd March 31

HARLING, JOSEPH WILLIAM, Leeds, Engineer. Leeds. Pet March 25. Ord April 1

HICKS, ABSALOM, Dover, Publican. Canterbury. Pet April 2. Ord April 2

HIGGS, EDWARD HOOD, Braybrooke Rectory, Northamptonshire, Clerk in Holy
Orders. Leicester. Pet March 2. Ord March 30
HUNTER, WILLIAM, Lincoln, Fruiterer. Lincolu. Pet March 31. Ord March 31
JOSEPH, ABRAHAM, Birmingham, Clothier. Birmingham. Pet March 4. Ord
April 2

KING, JOHN VINCENT, Brighton, Bicycle Agent. Brighton. Pet April 2. Ord

April 2

KNAPP. CLEMENT ALLEN, ERNEST EDWARD KNAPP, and HANNAH COLMAN, Toft Monks, Norfolk, Farmers. Gt Yarmouth. Pet March 14. Ord March 31 LANGWORTHY, EDWARD MARTIN, no permanent residence in England. High Court. Pet June 17. Ord April 1

LEE, ALFRED TIMOTHY, Stroud, Fruiterer. Gloucester. Pet March 14. Ord 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
March 31

MCGRATH, THOMAS, Abergavenny, Tailor. Tredegar. Pet March 9. Ord
March 31
MILLER, FRANK H., Beckenham, Kent, Builder. Croydon. Pet Feb 18. Ord
March 29

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA.

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."

Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps for years in all climates, and is four times the strength cf cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.

Mude instantaneously with boiling water, a te spoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

[blocks in formation]

Pet March 18. Ord April 2

UMPLEBY. HARRIET ANN, Stockton on Tees, out of business. Stockton on Tees and Middlesborough Pet March 30. Ord March 30

VICKERY, JAMES HENRY, New Swindon, Boot Maker. Swindon. Pet March 29.
Ord April 1
WARING, ISAAC, Rosedale, East Yorkshire, out of business. Scarborough. Pet
March 28. Ord March 30

WENDT, E. HENRY, no permanent residence in England, Gent. High Court.
Pet Nov 13. Ord April 1

WILDBLOOD, EDMUND, Burslem, Colour Manufacturer. Hanley, Burslem, and Tunstall. Pet March 28. Ord April 2

WINGROVE, CHARLES, Cambridge rd East, Livery S able Keeper. High Court. Pet March 31. Ord April 1

WOODALL, JOHN LEIGH, Neston, Cheshire, Chemist. Birkenhead. Pet Feb 8. Ord April 1

WOODS, EPHRAIM, New Barnet, Hertfordshire, Draper. Barnet. Pet March 24. Ord April 1

WYNN, CHARLES CADWALDER, and WALTER CHARLES WYNN, Nottingham, Plasterers Nottingham. Pet March 14. Ord April 2

The following Amended Notice is substituted for that published in the London Gazette of March 15. READHEAD, THOMAS, Messingham, Lincolnshire, Coal Dealer. Great Grimsby Pet March 9. Ord March 10

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

BAINES.-March 31, at Pembroke-gardens, Kensington, the wife of John W. Baines, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. DAY.-March 28. the wife of J. N. Da'Russell Day, of Wood-green, barrister-atlaw, of a daughter. FRYER.-April 3, the wife of G. E. S. Fryer, of the Inner Temple, barrister-atlaw, of a son.

MACDONALD.-March 27, at West Leigham-court-road, Streatham, the wife of Thomas Macdonald, barrister-at-law, of a son.

STUBBS.-March 27, at Cranham, East Molesey, the wife of Charles Stubbs, LL D., barrister-at-law, of a son.

SWORDER.-April 3, at Hertford, the wife of Thomas J. Sworder, solicitor, of a
daughter.
MARRIAGE.

CLARKE-COLLINS.-March 22, at Browns wood-park, N., George Rochfort Clarke,
barrister-at-law, to Alice Louisa, daughter of the late James Collins, of
Norwich.
DEATHS.

ELKINS-March 31, at South Reading, Frederick Elkins, Esq., solicitor.
FEW.-April 4, at Lavington, Putney Heath, Charles Few, of Surrey-street,
Strand, aged 70.
LEITH.-April 4, at Dorset-square, Regent's-park, John Farley Leith, Esq., Q.C,
aged 78.
SHARP.-March 29, at Culverden-hill, Tunbridge Wells, John Sharp, barrister-
at-law, aged 69.
TILSLEY-April 1, Hugh Ti'sley, solicitor, of North Petherton, Somerset, aged

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

In tins at 1s. 6d., 3s., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY AND CLERGY GOWNS

Grocers.

Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietor,

H. SCHWEITZER & Co., 10, Adam-st., Strand, London, W.C. |

ESTABLISHED 1689.

94 CHANCERY LANE LONDON.

[ocr errors]

383

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

UNTEARABLE LETTER

COPYING BOOKS.

(HOWARD'S PATENT.)

1,000 Leaf Book, 5s. 6d.

500 Leaf Book, 3s. 6d. English made.

THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OUT.

WODDERSPOON & CO.,

7, 8ERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET, LINCOLN'S INN, W.C.

[blocks in formation]

394

424

liable to the solicitor. But "usage makes the husband liable to indemnify whoever, on the part of the wife, has properly incurred expense by retaining the solicitor to prepare a settlement." That is to say, the rule as to the costs of a settlement corresponds with that relating to the costs of a lease, which is prepared by the lessor's solicitor, the lessor being entitled to be recouped the costs by the lessee (Grissell v. Robinson, 3 Bing. N. C. 10). The obligation of the 422 husband,therefore, did not rest on any liability on his part for his wife's ante-nuptial debts, but on the "usage" that he should indemnify anyone, whether the wife, or her parent, or a person in loco parentis, who incurred the costs of the settlement. As a matter of fact, this "usage," on which the husband's liability depends, remains unaltered, and as the Married Women's Property Act,

418

421

413

The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. 1882, does not "interfere with or affect any settlement" (section

LONDON, APRIL 16, 1887.

CURRENT TOPICS.

AT THE TIME of going to press the cause lists for the Easter Sittings of the court, commencing on Tuesday next, are not published. 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.

THE ATTENTION of solicitors practising in the county of Lancaster should be directed to the order of the Lord Chancellor, which will be found in another column, under which all causes in the Chancery Division commenced in either of the district registries of Liverpool or Manchester are to be marked for Mr. Justice KEKEWICH. This order is made under the powers of the new clause of rule 9 of order 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which was added by the Rules of December, 1886 (ante, p. 140). By ord. 35, r. 6a, the district registrar of each of the places above named is to act as chief clerk, registrar, and taxing master, so that Mr. Justice KEKEWICH Will in effect have the control of a large amount of chamber business which will be transacted, not under his own eye in London, but at Liverpool and Manchester. The general effect of the new order will be to give to suitors who commence their actions in the district registries of Manchester and Liverpool something very nearly approaching to a preference over all other Chancery suitors. It is obvious that Mr. Justice KEKEWICH will after a time be almost exclusively employed in trying cases from Lancashire, which would otherwise have been distributed among the five judges of the Chancery Division. So long as he has any Lancashire cases to try, he will never be in need of a transfer. It may well be that the cases so marked for Mr. Justice KEKEWICH Will take away a sufficient number from the other judges of the Chancery Division so as to have the same effect upon their lists as the exercise of the right of transfer would have had, but on the other hand there is a possibility that while Mr. Justice KEKEWICH is trying heavy cases his four colleagues will be getting deeper and deeper into arrear. This may have been foreseen by the Lord Chancellor, and it may be that the present new arrangement is only a step towards the appointment of another judge of the Chancery Division. Whether this be so or not, the new departure can only be looked upon as an experiment, the beneficial result of which, to Chancery suitors at large, is doubtful, 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 more favoured eompetitors for a hearing.

THERE SEEMS to be no end to the questions suggested by, and arising out of, the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. We think our readers will be somewhat startled by the doubt of a correspondent, whose letter we print in another column, whether the Act may not have altered the well-established rule as to liability for the costs of preparing a marriage settlement. We do not see any ground for the doubt. If the judgment in Helps v. Clayton (13 W. R. 161, 17 C. B. N. S. 533) is considered, it will be found that the basis of the rule laid down in that case with regard to the liability for costs is this: The retainer to prepare the settlement is to be considered that of the lady or her parent, as the case may be; the lady or her parent is therefore primarily

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 law gave the husband an interest in the property of his wife, for the object of the settlement was, of course, in all cases to exclude and vary this legal right.

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 allowed to appear or address the court. The judgment deals ably and exhaustively with the subject, and we trust that its effect will be to induce the other county court judges throughout the country to place a similar check on an abuse which of late years has been rapidly growing. It may be useful to subjoin a note of the statutory provisions bearing on the subject: Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, ss. 2, 36). Unqualified persons act in contravention of these sections and commit a contempt of court. Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 26). Unqualified persons act in contravention of this section and commit a contempt of court and incur a penalty. Stamp Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97, s. 59). Unqualified persons act in contravention of this section and incur a penalty. See also section 60, in contravention whereof these persons draw affidavits, &c. County Courts Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 10), refers to appearance "by himself or his attorney." County Courts Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, s. 10), as to who may appear in a county court. It seems clear that the "leave of the judge" should be a special permission in each particular case, and ought not to be given to enable a person to infringe an Act of Parliament, or to incur penalties, or to commit a contempt of court. County Courts Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 16), refers to appearance of defendant either in person or by some person "duly authorized" on his behalf. This "duly authorized" person must surely be either a solicitor or a barrister, or some person who has obtained leave from the judge. See also section 17, which refers to appearance "in person or by some person duly authorized to appear for him." County Courts (Costs and Salaries) Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 57, s. 2). "No person other than a solicitor shall be entitled to have or recover any fee or reward for appearing or acting on behalf of any other party in any proceedings in a county court.'

[ocr errors]

THE CASE OF Re Cooke's Estate, which we report in another 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 decided by the law of the country where the contract arises. The subsequent cases bearing upon the point have been very few, the chief authority being a dictum of Sir CRESSWELL CRESSWELL in Simonin v. Maillac (1 Sw. & Tr. 253) that "in general the personal competency or incompetency of individuals to contract has been held to depend upon the law of the place where the contract is made"; but the view of the law taken in those cases was accepted by many leading text-writers. In the year 1877, however, the Court of Appeal decided the case of Sottomayor v. De Barros (26 W. R. 455, 3 P. D. 1), in which the only question was whether two persons, who were Portuguese subjects and domiciled in Portugal, and who, being first cousins to each other,

decision of the case.

were, by the law of Portugal, prohibited from intermarrying, could contract a valid marriage in England; and it was held that they could not. In the course of their judgment the Lords Justices said: "It is a well-recognized principle of law that the question of personal capacity to enter into any contract is to be decided by the law of domicile"; and, later on, "The laws of a country where a marriage is solemnized must alone decide all questions relating to the validity of the ceremony by which the marriage is alleged to have been constituted; but, as in other contracts, so in that of marriage, personal capacity must depend on the law of domicile." Now, with regard to the particular contract of marriage, the decision in Sottomayor v. De Barros was completely in accordance with the opinions expressed in Brook v. Brook (9 W. R. 461, 9 H. L. Cas. 193); but the passages quoted above from the judgment of the Court of Appeal are considerably wider than was necessary for the It may be that no distinction in principle 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 case of other contracts, the validity of the contract (except in respect of the formal acts necessary to be gone through for the purpose of manifesting it) is to be determined by the lex domicilii. Prior, however, to the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Sottomayor v. De Barros, it seems that the consensus of opinion was in the opposite direction. In the case of Re Cooke's Estate Mr. Justice STIRLING has held himself bound by the opinions expressed in Sottomayor v. De Barros, and has accordingly decided that the question of the validity of a marriage settlement executed prior to the marriage of a domiciled English woman with a domiciled Frenchman is to be determined according to the lex domicilii, and that consequently, as the lady was an infant when she entered into the contract, it was not binding upon her. The state of the law thus disclosed is far from satisfactory, and it is to be hoped that the Court of Appeal may soon have an opportunity of authoritatively dealing with the general question.

THE LAND TRANSFER BILL.

II.

WE resume the subject we left off with in our last week's issue— system proposed by the Bill. Vendors may perhaps be found to namely, the extent to which deeds will be necessary under the contend that covenants for title are superseded by clause 18, sub

clause 1.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

That clause provides that "a registered charge or transfer shall have effect as a conveyance by deed, and the Consection 7 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, causes the several wellveyancing Acts, 1881, 1882, shall apply accordingly." Now known covenants for title, "by the person who conveys and is &c., to be implied "in a conveyance expressed to convey as, (which by section 2, sub-section (v.), means a conveyance by deed). But, unless the existing forms under the Act of 1875 are so far modified as to allow of a transfer being expressed as made by" a beneficial owner," for instance (a liberty denied by the present G. R. 58 and form 23), a solicitor advising a purchaser should be careful to keep on the safe side.

II. THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT.

We also, last week, referred to the bulk of the literature that at present exists on the subject of registration of title as a reason for abstaining from discussing the subject in its general aspect now. But as very possibly some of our readers (whose engagements in the present leave them little leisure to study a future so remote as the establishment of registration of title appeared but a short while ago to be) may have omitted to take note of that literature when it came out, and may now wish to be reminded where it is to be found, we now append an account of some of the principal works that have been published upon the subject of late years. The list does not pretend to be exhaustive; if any omissions have been made list will supply enough mental fodder for busy men to go on with, we shall be glad to hear of them, meanwhile we believe that the 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 student:

1857.

SOME DOUBT appears to have existed whether covenants in restraint of trade are divisible with regard to time-that is, 1850. whether, supposing them to be reasonable for a certain length of time, but unreasonable beyond, they can be enforced for the earlier period, although invalid for the later. The matter is, of course, of great importance, for, if the law decided against such division, a covenant that has been for any reason drawn too strictly would 1859. be void altogether. It is satisfactory, therefore, to note the recent decision of Mr. Justice NORTH in Baines v. Geary (ante, p. 363). In this case the covenant was entered into by a milk-carrier with 1862. his employer, and bound him not to serve for his own benefit any customers whom his employer, or his successors or assigns, might at any time have. The business was assigned, and the milkcarrier, who had left the employment just before the assignment, solicited the custom of the old customers, and an injunction was accordingly prayed against him. To the contention that the covenant was unreasonable inasmuch as it extended to customers obtained after the defendant had left the employment, and was, therefore, bad altogether, Mr. Justice NORTH replied that it was, at any rate, reasonable with regard to those who were customers 1873. while the defendant was in the employment; and holding, on the authority of Nichols v. Stretton (7 Beav. 42), that the covenant was divisible in regard to time, he granted the injunction so far as related to these. This is certainly on the side of reason, and removes a pitfall into which those who have to frame such covenants have been in danger of falling. That they are divisible 1874. in respect of space was decided in Price v. Green (16 M. & W. 346).

1869-70. 1872.

1875. 1876.

1878-79.

Mr. Arthur Arnold has written to Lord Salisbury on behalf of the Free Land League, pointing out that "in 1869 Lord Clarendon obtained 1877. from her Majesty's representative at Berlin a report upon the tenure and transfer of land in Prussia, which has long since become obsolete by the passing of the law of 1872. The practical results of that law, which established a system of conveyance by registration of title, with procedure closely following that adopted in the Australian colonies, appear in many respects advantageous and applicable to this country; and requesting that before the Land Transfer Bill is considered in committee 1885. of the House of Lords Lord Salisbury will obtain a report upon the method and operation of the Prussian system.

1881.

ENGLISH.

Report of Registration and Conveyancing Commission. (Specially valuable for full fac simile reproduction of maps and indices used in Belgium to define boundaries and record dealings.) Report of Registration of Title Commission. (Advocates views which have been accepted of late years only. Very full appenJ. M. Ludlow. Stock, Share, and Land Registers. Juridical dix by Mr. Wilson (200 pages) setting forth his scheme.) Society's Papers, 18th April. (Much information as to the distinction between the three.)

E. P. Wolstenholme. Simplification of title to land, &c. Juridical Society's Papers. 10th March. (Exposes the paradox of "indefeasible title," and gives outline of a plan for simplification of title without registration.)

Joshua Williams. The true remedy, &c. Juridical Society's Papers. 24th March. (Suggests numerous changes of detail, and registry of deeds.)

Lord Westbury's Act (25 & 26 Vict. c. 53).

Report of Land Transfer Commission.

Return as to Registration of Title in the Australasian Colonies, (Full text of "Torrens" Acts, and much information as to their working.)

F. H. Colt.

Remarks on the Land Transfer Question; reprint from Law Journal. (Advocates compulsion and registration of fee simples only. Sketch of suggested enactment.) Lord Selborne's Bill.

G. Sweet. Impediments to the Transfer of Land. Paper read to Juridical Society. 19th March. (Advocates registration of title, shewing all subsisting rights, with detail of how it may be done.)

G. Sweet. Observations on Land Titles and Transfer Bill. ¡Advocates compulsory registration of possessory titles at public cost with outline of enactment.)

Lord Cairns' Land Transfer Act.

R. H. Holt. Land Transfer Act, 1875. (Text-book, with introductory chapter (36 pages) and practica! suggestions (20 pages) added.)

Sir Robert M. Torrens. Essay published by Cobden Club (6d.) Very full and readable account of the chief points notable in the Australian system.

Report, Mr. Osborne Morgan's Committee. (Incidentally, interesting evidence as to the Scotch Registry of deeds.) Return on Registration of Title in the Australasian Colonies. (Continues former one-1872, and is equally valuable.) Duke of Marlborough. Transfer of Land, Fortnightly Review, April. (Advocates mainly the system of confirmation of possessory titles adopted in the Chancellor's present Bill.)

Sir Horace Davey. Letters to the Times, September. (Advocates compulsory registration of possessory title and curtailment of settlements.)

F. H. Colt. The Land Transfer Question. (Similar to former pamphlet with corrections up to date.)

J. Powell. How to make simple the Transfer of Land. (Full review of history of law and exposition of present system; advocates registry of deeds with no notice of trusts.)

1886. Incorporated Law Society. Statement on the Land Laws. (Full account of modern history since 1828, and careful review of recent experience, including Australian. Endeavours to be quite impartial.)

Reprinted-SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, Jan. 30 and Feb. 13, and Law Times, Jan. 30 to Feb. 27. Reviewed-SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, Jan. 30 continuously to March 13; Law Times, Jan. 30; Law Journal, Feb. 13 (by F. H. Colt). Bar Committee. Land Transfer. (Very full and readable; same general scope as the last.)

Reviewed-SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, April 10 and 17; Law Times, April 17 and May 1; Law Journal, May 15 (F. H. Colt). R. B. Morris. Registration of Titles. Prize Essay. JudgesLord Hobhouse, Sir H. Davey, E. F, Turner. (Full historical introduction; advocates compulsion; some detail of proposed scheme. Appendix as to systems of land transfer in other countries.)

J. Topham. Essay on Registration of Titles. (Reviews present system; advocates registry of abstracts and deeds, with simplification of legal estates.)

several publications.

1873.

1886.

F. Werner, Berlin. (Official edition of law substantially the same as the Torrens system; with full introduction, notes, and appendices, with model register and forms.) Annuaire de la legislation étrangère. Paris. Article on the above Prussian law, by P. Gide. (At the Inner Temple Library only.) D. H. Ohmstead. New York. Land Transfer Reform. (Advocates registration of deeds, to prepare for registration of title.)

C. Gide. Etude sur l'Act Torrens. Paris. (Very lucid dissertation on the Act, and entertaining account of the agitation in South Australia.)

III.-CONFIRMATION OF TITLES.

1. Why is it wanted?-To appreciate the value of the new mode of obtaining an absolute title out of a possessory one instituted by the present Bill it will be necessary to explain briefly the reasons why the absolute, qualified, and possessory titles of the Act of 1875 each failed to give satisfaction to those who applied for them. The grounds of objection in practice to each of these are as follow:

(i.) The absolute title was so difficult to obtain that it was useless to apply for it in contemplation of a sale, for it increased the expenses and delays of the immediate transaction, without sensibly attracting buyers or increasing the prices obtainable, while it was extravagant to apply for it after a sale, or, indeed, at any other time, owing to the remoteness of the occasion of benefit.

H. W. Elphinstone on the Transfer of Land. January Law Quarterly. (General considerations; advocates compulsion; (ii.) The qualified title was, in its result, a sort of condemnation treats form of registers, effect of errors, indexing by map, of a landowner to make public confession, almost in the auction reversions, &c., &c.) Also Review (Law Quarterly, April) of room, of some technical weakness, which, though easy enough to T. Key. Registration of Title to Land. July Law Quarterly. 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 that the original application was in all cases obliged, by section 9 of the Act, to be (in form, at any rate) for an absolute title; so that they cost as much trouble and money and time to obtain as the absolute, and were of even more doubtful advantage when obtained.

C. F. Brickdale. Registration of Title to Land. (Detailed com-
parison of English and Australian experience, and substantive
plan for registry of title without cost or compulsion).

Reviewed SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 11th December; Law
Quarterly Review, January (1887).

Anonymous Articles

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL-How Should our Land Laws be Reformed?
Dec. 26 (1885) to Jan 16.

Law Times-Registration of Titles, May 29 to July 27.
Law Journal-Prospects of Land Registration, Dec 18.
Westminster Review-New View of Registration of Title to Land,
July.
A Dialogue between Doctor and Student, &c., &c. (Failure of Land
Transfer Act due to its too great care of dormant claims, and
consequent expenses and delays).

(iii.) The possessory title was (as already shewn in our last issue) found to be far dearer than it ought to have been, and, at that price, was certainly not worth the outlay. In connection inertia which has encumbered the progress of registration all with these possessory titles, a curious instance of the pure vis along was given to Mr. O. Morgan's Committee by a well-known solicitor. He had ordered that all simple conveyances for the future should be registered with possessory title, and for some time supposed that his orders were being carried out. Having Transfer Question. (Various detailed suggestions for registry of occasion to inquire after a particular case, he found that in no case titles). had it been done. The clerks did what they were accustomed to do, and then put the several matters aside for a more convenient season (Evidence, No. 1149). It is to be hoped the "confirmation" will prove more attractive.

Reviewed-SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, Jan. 9.

1887. W. H. Townsend. Some Practical Observations on the Land

AUSTRALIAN.

Acts. Are all drawn on the same model: the Torrens Act of South
Australia (1857) as amended in 1861. They are very full, and
contain all the matter usually relegated to General Rules in
England.

Parliamentary Papers

1861, South Australia. Report, Evidence (106 pp.), and Appendix (20 pp.)
-Practical Working of Torrens Act.
1864. South Australia. Return as to certificates recalled for mistakes
in parcels. (Map and description of error appended in each
case.)

1873.

Practical Working of Torrens Act.

South Australia. Report, Evidence (84 pp.), Appendix (50 pp.) 1881-83. New South Wales. Returns (very full) as to operations of registry. 1885. Queensland. Return as to work of office ever since 1861, followed by yearly reports on same model, with commentary by registrar. Victoria. Report, Evidence (200 pp.) - Practical Working of Torrens Act. (The above papers are at the Colonial Office Library. There are probably others relating to Tasmania, New Zealand, and Western Australia that we have not had the opportunity of perusing. It is impossible to exaggerate the value of these records of experience, which cover the whole ground, and supply practical lessons on every detail of procedure) Melbourne Daily Telegraph, Oct. 13, 1884. Report on process of registering old titles. By Mr. Sandford. Canada. J. H. Mason. Land Transfer Reform. Toronto, 1884. (Collects much information as to Torrens system, and advocates Ontario, Manitoba, and North-West Territory Legislatures have established the Torrens system (without compulsion) during the year 1886. FOREIGN.

its introduction.)

1872. Prussia. Grundbuch und Hypotheken Gezetze vom 5 Mai, 1872.

2. How will it be accomplished?-The process is virtually a shortening of the period of prescription to five years where possessory or qualified title has been registered, in consideration of public and private notice to all whom it may concern, and the compensation provided by the assurance fund in all cases of mistake, coupled with the applicant's affidavit evidence, and his liability personally in damages (clause 10, sub-clause 5) if any loss results. The applicant pays all costs of reasonable petitions against confirmation. The important question for the applicant will probably be found in practice to be-how many petitions will usually be presented in opposition, of which he will have to pay the costs as "reasonable"? Now, apart from the question of boundaries, it is not likely that the public and private notices will evoke many opposing petitions of a "reasonable "" character. Public notices are merely guarantees of good faith, and will not be likely to produce any oppositions. The private notices could hardly be served on anyone likely to object; for they could only be served upon the persons named in the applicant's title deeds (who, being his own predecessors in title, would seldom object), or upon registered incumbrancers-prescribed by the Bill-(who, as their rights are protected as such by the Land Transfer Act, s. 7, sub-section 1, would not trouble themselves much), or upon "cautioners," who would be easily arranged with previously in all cases where their claims were not substantial and hostile; where they were, of course the matter could not go on, nor should it.

The affidavit to be made on an application for confirmation is

required to contain (clause 7, sub-clause 2) a statement to the effect that the deponent has made due inquiry into the title. Thus the affidavit will require to be made by a professional lawyer, or the statement will be a farce. This being so, it will be well to make the application immediately after the purchase, when the state of the title is fresh in the mind of the purchaser's solicitor.

On the whole, it would appear that if too much advertising is not insisted upon by the board, this process will be cheap and effectual. If the present rules are followed (G. R. 6) the applicant must be the owner of a fee simple in possession, or have power to dispose of the fee; and so the persons (if any) dispossessed by mistaken confirmation would only be persons whose interests are remote, as to whom it is now generally admitted that money compensation is adequate. In fact, under the Settled Land Act, money value is all that such persons can make sure of even now.

But when we approach the question of confirmation of boundaries 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 requiring all reasonable expenses of objectors to be paid by the applicant (a rule which it is impossible not to retain), every objection to a boundary was contested with the greatest pertinacity; in fact, one solicitor of experience thought that almost a third of the expenses of registration under that Act (which were very heavy) was due to this cause; and another averred that it was cheaper for applicants to relinquish all disputed boundaries rather than fight the unequal battle. Under the present Bill, however, compensation will be given to persons deprived of their boundaries, which, no doubt, will make a difference; still, this fact will hardly disentitle an objector to his costs wherever the resistance was plausible in itself. From these considerations it will be a matter requiring grave consideration whether proprietors should ever be advised to apply for "confirmation of boundaries except where they are able to arrange beforehand with their neighbours that no objections shall be taken.

[ocr errors]

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 in their progress, that take place in the configuration of estates, and how to provide a readier means than the office has yet succeeded in providing for the not uncommon exigency of a sale in lots.

NEW ORDERS, &c.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISION.
LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRIES.

I, Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, in pursuance of the Rules of the Supreme Court, December, 1886, do hereby order that on and after the eighteenth day of April, 1887, until further order, every cause or matter in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice commenced in the District Registry of Liverpool or the District Registry of Manchester shall be marked with the name of the Honourable Mr. Justice Kekewich, one of the judges of the Chancery Division. The 5th day of April, 1887.

CORRESPONDENCE.

HALSBURY, C.

THE MIDDLESEX REGISTRY.
[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir, The letter of Mr. G. P. Jackson discloses a very grave state of affairs. Everybody must agree with him that it is a scandal that any public department should be permitted to allow its official references to fall into the condition he describes, and thereby practically limit inquiry to a "private" book for searches in which a special fee is required. I am sorry I do not, at the moment, see my way to incorporate this question into the intended application for a mandamus relating to the demand of the registry that all town witnesses should attend at Great James-street instead of being permitted to depose to a deed before a London commissioner.

It will interest the profession to know that this very day my memorial has been tendered and refused, and that application will be made to the Queen's Bench Division for a rule nisi. With regard to the

[ocr errors]

inquiry last year in which I succeeded in recovering back the overcharge for length, but failed as to the items for oath and exhibit, I am by no means sure that a further appeal would have been wise if permitted, to say nothing of the fact that the real point raised by the argument of the judges-viz., the reasonableness of paying the same oath fees inside as one would have to pay outside-would have had to be disposed of by mandamus whatever the ultimate result of the particular action. The question about to be raised by mandamus deals with something like thirty thousand half-crowns per annum paid to the registrar, which, among other things, means that commissioners for oaths (who have had to pay for their privilege) are quietly deprived of a yearly sum of £3,000 to £4,000! The great question, however, is the needless personal attendance of town witnesses between prescribed hours at a building altogether out of the run of the public offices, in the face of the Act giving them the option and convenience of going before a neighbouring comCity, April 6.

missioner.

FRANCIS K. MUNTON.

COSTS OF MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS.

To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-A solicitor is retained by a lady's father to draw her marriage settlement of personalty, which is one of the ordinary character. He duly prepares the settlement, and after the marriage sends in the bill to the husband. The husband objects to pay the bill, alleging that his wife's father is the liable. person the bill-happen during the year 1886. All the incidents-the retainer, the marriage, and the delivery of

Under such circumstances, is the husband liable for the bill, and does the case of Helps v. Clayton, decided before the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882, govern the matter? April 12.

TABELLIO.

[See observations under head of "Current Topics."-ED. S. J.]

CASES OF LAST WEEK. HARRIS v. ROTHWELL-C. A. No. 2, 5th April. PATENT-PRIOR PUBLICATION-DEPOSIT OF SPECIFICATION

IN FOREIGN

LANGUAGE IN PATENT OFFICE LIBRARY. 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 obtained in this country. The plaintiff was the assignee of a patent granted in 1880 for improvements in knitting machines. In 1877 and 1879 certain specifications and drawings of German patents for knitting machines were deposited in the London Patent Office for public inspection. The specifications were in the German language, and it was admitted that if they had been English they would, together with the drawings, have conveyed sufficient information to a competent workman to enable him to carry out the invention which was the subject of the plaintiff's patent. Entries were published in the Patents Journal of the German specifications in the list of foreign patents, and they were referred to as knitting machines. A foot-note was appended to the list, stating that the specifications, as well as the list of applications, might be consulted at the free public library of the Patent Office. The German specifications had been actually open to inspection in the Patent Office library, 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 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 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 assumed that the information was given in a language which was unintelligible to the public (see the case reported ante, p. 27).

THE COURT OF APPEAL COTTON, LINDLEY, and LOPES, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision. LINDLEY, L.J., said that the question was in substance whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff's assignor was the true and first inventor of the invention. The plaintiff had established a prima facie case by proving the patents, and he thus threw the burden of proof on the defendant, and it was for him to prove, if he could, some prior use of the invention in this country, or some prior publication in this country, of some intelligible description of the invention. In the present case plaintiff's patent there existed in the library of the Patent Office two prior publication was relied upon. It was said that before the date of the annexed, contained a description of the plaintiff's invention. copies of two German specifications, each of which, with the drawings One of these specifications had been in the library more than a year; the other had been there about six weeks. Their existence in the library was not

« PreviousContinue »