« PreviousContinue »
RETAINERS OF COUNSEL.
IT is very desirable that plain and intelligible regulations as to retainers of counsel should be universally known and observed. The practice is, however, in many respects doubtful and unsettled, and disputes often arise which cause much inconvenience and annoyance both to barristers and solicitors. It is in most cases difiicult, and in some cases impossible, to get disputed questions of this kind promptly and authoritatively answered.
The rules as to retainers have, as a matter of fact, been made by counsel’s clerks, and when a clerk has any doubt as to whether he should accept a retainer, he seeks advice from some other clerk, generally the clerk to the Attorney-General or a leader, and the question is often settled without any reference to the counsel sought to be retained. There are, however, cases where the decision of the clerk is not accepted by the contending parties, and i.n that event the counsel either refuses to act at all, or he refers the question to the leader of the court or circuit, or to the Attorney-General; but an opinion can seldom be obtained early enough to be of any practical use, and, because of the necessity for expedition, disputes must be settled by the barristers themselves. This being so, it would be a great boon if the rules as to retainers could be collected, in order that both barristers and solicitors should know the principles which regulate the practice on this subject.
We are aware of the steps taken by the Incorporated Law Society in 1847 and 18-18 for collecting and formulating the rules as to retainers. They sent a circular containing a series of quelstionsto all London solicitors as well as to the provincial law societies, and from the materials thus collected they framed a set of rules which were submitted to the Judges and Serjeants and the Inns of Court. The rules were also sent to the Attorney-General and to all the Queen's Counsel, but the junior bar was not consulted, which, in our opinion, was a mistake. No reply was received from the judges, the serjeants, the Attorney-General, or the Inns of Court. Some of the Queen's Counsel suggested amendments, which were adopted, but the bar as a body held aloof. The principal reason for this appears to have been that it was considered a piece of assumption on the part of solicitors to frame rules for the guidance of counsel; but all that appears to have been done was simply to state the practice as it was then known to exist, with the view of making it generally known and uniform. Although the rules seem to have been sent to all practising barristers and solicitors, they do not appear to have been acted on, and are now almost, if not entirely, forgotten. A better feeling now exists between both branches of the profession, and it is to be hoped that the Bar Committee and the Law Society will iuiite in promulgating rules which would then be binding both on barristers and solicitors.
With the view of assisting in the attainment of this object, a correspppdent has sent us some rules relating to the matter which have n formulated by way of suggestion only. It is not pretended that they are complete, or perhaps in every respect in accordance with existing practice. They are, however, intended to be framed in the interest of both branches of the profession, and may serve as a groundwork for discussion :—
1. A general retauier, unless otherwise expressed, applies to all courts iii which the counsel receiving it usually practises at the time it is given, and gives the client a preference in retaining specially the counsel to whom it is given in any action in which the client may be concerned. including new trials, rehcarings, appeals, but a special general retainer must be given for business in Parliament.
2. If the counsel should be offered a special retainer or brief by the opponent of the party having given such general retainer, the party who gave the general 1‘rf.8.il18l‘ is entitled to notice, and unless the counsel receives a special retainer or brief from the party who gave the general retainer, he may accept the special retainer or brief of the opponent.
3. In case a special retainer or brief is offered to counsel against the party who has given_a special retainer, the counsel is at liberty to accept the special retainer or brief of the other party 11111898. two days before the time appointed for the trial, argument, taking evidence, or hearing, a brief be given by the party who gave such special retainer.
This rule is intended to meet the case of a retainer without the intention to send a brief unless the opposite art sends a brief ggtgitfiinzigotyour enemies and briefs to your fl-ienlils,” Sir Samuel resisteg. say was a disgraceful proceeding, and ought to be
4. In the case of a s ecial re ' ~
' ' - . P
I fair towards those who ought not to be required _to deliver briefs to the leader on all occasions. _ _ _
5. When counsel has drawn pleadings, or advised during the progress cr in contemplation of an action, a retainer or brief may be accepted from, and pleadings drawn for and advice given to, the opponent, unless a retainer has been given by the first client after notice to the first client.
Great difiiculty was felt when there was not a general retainer, but the counsel had acted or advised at an earlier stage of the proceedings. Nothing occurring in a barrister‘s practice can be more annoying and repugnant than to have had a personal conference with a client, mastered the intricacies of his case, and discussed its difliculties, and to find himself subsequently holding a brief for the opposite side. It may be that the whole, or the greater part, of what passed at the early conference has escaped his memory; but_ one fact frequently recalls another, and if information is derived frcm_ different sources, when it comes to be used and applied some time after, it is quite impossible for the counsel to distinginsh and appropriate each particular fact as it recurs to his meinory._ There_is, we trust, no man at the bar, who would wilfully iiseunformstlon obtained in professional confidence from a client to his disadvantage. but it is possible that this may he done involun_tarily,_ and the suspicion is painful and degrading. Sir Samuel Romilly said, in the case of Lord Chclmomleley v. Lord (llfntnn (17 V*:s._26l):—“My opinion is that a counsel ought not, if he knows anything that may be prejudicial to the former client, to accept the new brief, though the first client refused to retain him." The unpleasant consequences suggested can be avoided by sending to the earher client the notice suggested in the rule, and as a general form of notice might ho readily framed and used, the object of sending it would be universally understood, and no apprehension need be felt that counsel would lay themselves open to the imputation of soliciting briefs.
6. As between two clients for whom general retainers have been
'ven, the right of the clients to the services of the counsel dbpends on the priority of such retainers. _ _ _
7. A general retainer, except in the case of corporations. Jnlnt stock companies, benefit or other societies, and newspapers. lasts for the joint lives of the client and counsel. _
8. A general retainer given for any corporation is determined by its dissolution or by its acceptance of a new charter or obtaining a. new act of incorporation.
9. A general retainer for a joint stock company, benefit 0! Other society is determined by such company changing Its B5349 °r title or becoming incorporated. _ _
10. A general retainer given for a newspaper is determined PY an alteration in its name, but not by a change of its pr0p1'19fQl‘9. publishers, or printers, and it extends only to matters aflecting such newspaper, but extends to all such matters, whether the proprietors, the publishers, or the printers are parties to tho action, suit, or proceeding. _ _
11. A general retainer given for a partnership or firm ls 416$?!" mined by a change in the style of the partnership 01' firmbut not by ii change in the constituent. members of it. nl
12. A general retainer given for a partnership or firm extends 0 6' to matters affecting the partnership, but extends to at such matters, notwithstanding that all the partner! "HY 11° be included in the action brought.
13. A general retainer given for one person extends to matters affecting himself personally, but it does not extend to matters in which he is interested as assignee, trustee» executor’ °r administrator. r
14. Where a general retainer is given for one person and he sue? O is sued with others, such retainer is not binding in that ac!-10116 except in the case of such person being a defendant an
defending separately. _ 15. A special retainer cannot be given until after the commence ment of an action or proceeding. _ f the
16. A special retainer gives the client a right to the services 0
1'1. All retainers, whether general or special, are determined bY his
18. Where a special or general retainer has been given and 3 r.'° or
19. A special retainer must be given for a particular assize». -t E
20. If the action be not tried at the assizes for which the Ye uh.
‘ has been given, the retainer must be renewed for every 9
The defendant, who was a married woman, on April 14, 1880, gave ii promissory note to the plaintiff. Judgment was signed on that note on August 18, 1885. By the will of the defendant's aunt, who died in 1872
dividend ,, tge Y_,dat a time when such shares were quoted " cum certain real property was left to trustees in trust for the testatrlx's sister:
Cm thee st of September. be divided between such of the testatrix's nieces as were then surviving.
Mary Wright died in July, 1886. An inquiry having been directed as to
mitted that the only property she had was her interest under her
aunt’s will; but it was contended that that was not separate property
:~ which could be bound by the contract, since her interest in it was conWe _ O tingent on her surviving the life tenant. _ It was further contended that ngamyihlgftfiaigd that on the 20“! inst. in Mr Charles Fours action if, at the dates of the contract and the Judgment, the defendant had a
Stirling, J, for gamma Law society, vcounsei applied. ex park to ifipflflltfl property in this reversionary interest, execution could not now u
lhe Writ summons’ to "I've notice of motion for an injunction with be
“W00 0! motion to F’.'md 511° learned judge granted leave to serve
issued against the property which had since come into her possession,
t ' ' -. I nday, the 29m mat considered that the interest of the defendant was part cf her separate
,, estate, and was bound by the contract, and his decision was upheld by
the Divisional Court (Coleridge, O.J., and Mathew, J .). The defendant appealed.
THE Oonar (Lord Esusii, M.R , and Lei-as, L.J.) dismissed the appeal. Lord ESHER, l\I.R., said that he was clearly of opinion that the defendant had at the time of making the contract a vested intcrest in remainder, which was liable to be divested if she pro-deceased the tenant for life. That interest vested in her at the moment of the death of the testatrix. The fact that her interest had new increased by coming into possession on the death of the life tenant made no difference. The judgment had the same efiect as a charge on her separate property. Lorss, L.J., said that it was beyond all question that the defendant had at the time of making the contract a vested interest in remainder, since it was ready to come into possession the moment the tenant for life died.-—Ooimssr., Bighorn, Q.-C , B1111 H- 5- D1451.’ C0-Wm-Harriy, Q-C., and Illcfilymont. SuLiciTos.s, Taylor, Hours, H13/lor, 4- Box, for J. 4- A. Burton Q Scorer Lincoln,‘ ill/irton, Uuflvr, Q O0.
of this sum to app? £4,000 and the income thereof in the establishment of a soup kitchen or the parish of Shoreditch and of a cottage hospital adjoining thereto, in such manner as not to violate the Mortmain Acts, such hospital to be provided with not less than four beds. And he directed that the income of the remaining £6,000 should be applied in payin certain salaries to a resident nurse and a surgeon for the hospital, and otherwise towards the necessities of the hospital, and for the benefit thereof, and of the patients who should from time to time be taken into it, as his trustees should in their absolute discretion think flt. it was decided by the court that the gift was valid under the Mortmain Acts, because it might be carried out either on land already in mortmain or bg inducing some one to give land for the purpose. An inquiry was directe whether the fund, or any part thereof, could be applied for the establishment of a soup kitchen and cottage hospital, and for the benefit of such hospital, in accordance with the directions of the testator. The chief clerk found that no part of the fund could be so a plied, because no land could be obtaine for the purpose in the parish. l(ay, J., refused an application to vary the certificate. The testator's next of kin took out a summons asking that the fund might be paid over to them, on the ground that the charitable purpose had failed altogether. Kay, J ., held that the testator had manifested a general intention to benefit the poor of the parish of Shoreditch, independently of the particular mode of application which he had pointed out, and that, as that mode could not be carried out, the court would apply the fund oy-pris. His lordship accordiplglg directed a scheme to be settled in chambers for the application of t e und.
THE Cociir or Aryan. (Corrox, Lirmnsr, and Fin‘, L.JJ.) afirmed the decision. COTTON, L.J., said that for the purpose of the appeal it must be assumed that the fund could not be applied in the manner pointed out in the will. The question was whether the court could apply the doctrine of cg-prés. If there was a gift to a articular legatee the legacy failed if the legatee did not or would not t&e it. But the question in the present case was whether the t-estator had given a legacy to s particular institution, or whether he had expressed s general intention to benefit the poor of the parish of Shoreditch, pointing out a particular mode of effecting his intention. In the latter case, if the particular intention could not be carried out, the court would apply the fund cg-préi. In his lordship's opinion the latter was the true view of the bequestThe testator had expressed an intention to give £10,000 for the benefit of the sick and poor of Shoreditch, and had pointed out the mode in which it was to be done. The ift was not for erecting a particular building in the parish; it was for the parish-—not merely in it; it was for the benefit of the poor in the parish. It was clear that the testator intended to benefit the poor of the parish in the particular way which he had pointed out, if possible, but, at any rate, to benefit them. LINDLBY and Far, L.JJ., concurred.--Coussn, Pearson, Q,.C., and Gm‘! Russell; Sir R. Webafon A.G., and Ingle Joyce ,- Edwin Ward and F. E. Ward. SOLICITORS, Pattison, Wiyg, §- 0o. ; Hare Q Co. ; Angeli, Imbort-Terry, Q Page.
In this case a motion was made by the piaintifls for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants (inter alia) from infringing or coloiirabli imitating the plaintiffs’ registered mark or label. It appeared that the plaintiffs had registered a mark for cigarettes consisting of a design, M111 had also sought to register three coats of arms, but their application in that respect was refused by the comptroller. The plaintiffs label ¢0_I1sisted of the registered design and the three coats of arms, and the plain
‘ tifis alleged that the defendants had imitated their label by copying
the design and the coats of arms. The defendants, however, submitted that, as the plaintiifs had never used their mark in a valid manner. but only together with matter which had been refused registration, they Wm not entitled to protection.
Cur-r'rr, J., said that the plaintiffs’ use of the coats of arms did Mi vitiate their right to have their registered mark protected. It would splitting hairs to hold that the use of that which was not registrable 111 conjunction with that which had been registered deprived a registered mark of the protection which registration had given it. The defends-Ill-B intention to copy was shewn by the circumstance that they had made '1” of the coats of arms. He granted the injiinction.—Cou.\'ssi., Balm‘, Q-O-1 and Sebastian ; Sir A. Watson, Q,.G., and Oswald. SOLICITOR5, J. A/9”""°" Lalliam ,' Spyer if Son.
B87; g April 23, i887. THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. 411
W. R. 26, 30 Ch. D. 231), and there was power under the general juris-
STIRLING, J., held at the distinction between Re Gill, Smitli v. Gill and
MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL CHANCERY
Ma. J union Krxswicii, on taking his seat in court on Tuesday, addressed
'13: lrgalrhlpdsaild, "I wish to make some remarks for the convenience
erea r commenced n the District Registry of Liverpool or the District
the §th of April, 1887, (see anle, p. 392) that on arid after the 18th of
ivision am to be marked with my name and to come before mo, and I
l‘ Mas; t at can be done b my rising two hours earlier
0 ex ress any opinion at resent on what I have stated, but I
PY°¢l»1Ilng in this court, your juniors, and your clients, who know better
1°11! c scand of a block of busine m beunim aired, and
."'°°¢ W1_ t e ordinary business.” M . B rb id he desired to thank his lordship for the early intimation hc had givgili btbncerning the business, ;“d'°.“ behalf of himself and colleagues, could say they would do all h';l-hézpower to aid in deciding on the most beneficial arrangement to
many ways. Since the last report in October, 1886, fifty-nine naw members have been admitted. The aggregate number of solicitors iii England and Wales now enrolled as members of the association is 3,003, of whom 1,068 are life, and 1,940 annual subscribers. Fifty-one life members are also contributors of annual subscriptions ranging from one to ten guineas cacb. During the four months the general receipts of the association, from all sources, amounted to £1,003 15s. 4d.. in which sum is included a liberal donation of £105 from Mr. John North, solicitor, Leeds. The purchase of a sum of £111 19s. 3d. New Two-and-half per Cent. Stock having been completed as the investment of the late Mr. John liIason’s legacy of £100, the invested capital of the association now consists of £46,091 19s. stock, in addition to the sum of £5,048 10s. 5d. Met. Three-and-half per Cent. Stock pertaining to the Reardon Bequest. During the some period many distressing cases were considered by the directors, and a sum of £825 was distributed in grants. Of this amount £270 was given in the relief of six cases of member's families, and £555 in twenty-seven cases of non-members and the families of non-members. The audited statement of accounts shews that at the close of the year ending December Slat, 1886, a balance of £115 7s. 3d. remained to the credit of the association at the Union Bank of London, together with a further balance of £207 10s. 5d. belonging to the Reardon Trust Account; the sum of £15 remained in the hands of the secretary. While renewing their appeal for the individual help of inembersin obtaining new subscribers to the association, the board desire to record their thanks to those local committees and other gentlemen who have lately taken up the cause. In N ewcastle-upon-Tyne many members have recently been added to the list through the kind efforts of two members of the association. The result of the work undertaken by the Cardiff district local committee also continues to be encouraging. The following is an extract from the second annual report forwarded by Mr. G. F. Hill, the hon. sec., and signed by Mr. R. W. Grifiith, the chairman:—‘Yo1ir committee have, since their last report, canvassed the town of Newport ( Mon.) for subscriptions to this association, and are glad to say that they have already secured fourteen new members ; but they intend to further prosecute tbe workiin that town, as there are many solicitors there who, y_oi_ir committee feel persuaded, have but to be asked in order readily to _]0l11 this society. They scarcely met with a single refusal; and when they have completed their efforts in that town they intend turning their attention to Swansea, Pontypridd, Bridgend, and other places. Your committee are more than ever satisfied that the sending of_ circulars to members of the profession is of very little use in inducing them_ to subscribe to the association.’ Such valued efforts cannot fa I to_brm_g much benefit to the association, and an extension of_ such organizations is earnestly hoped for throughout the kingdom. With much pleasure the board have to announce that E. J . Bristow, Esq., has kind y Bcceptcd their invitation to preside at the twenty-seventh anniversary festival of the association, to be held on Thursday, June 9th next, at the Hotel hlctropolo, London. The board venture to hope that members of the association, and the profession generally, will regard this festival as a fitting celebration of Her Maj csty's J ubilso 3 ear, and that a hearty and general response will be given to Mr. Bristow’s advocacy of the claims of the association. Gentlemen willing to add their names to the list ol stewards will please send them to the secretary as early as possible. ' _
The CHAlR.¥lAl\', in moving the adoption of the report, said_ that the 0b]€Cl3 of the Solicitors’ Benevolent Association was stated in a single sentence, “ for the relief of poor and necessitous solicitors and proctors in England and \Vales, and their wives, widows, and families." lvever was the association more needed. It was a common notion that lawyers were prosperous when other people were suifering. N othiiig could be further from the truth. Lawyers prospered when other people prospered, 81111 Yfiffl depressed when other people were depressed. ilevcr, probably,_ Wltliln the experience of business men, had there been greater depression in every branch of trade. Diii-ing the past half-year the board considered many distressing cases of solicitors iii " necessitous circumstances, of widows and children absolutely destitute. All bad received the most careful and anxious consideration; the directors spared neither time nor trouble iii investigations. He (the chairman) was glad to think how many homes had been brightened and hearts relieved by the grants they made.‘ The board remembered with pleasure the pecuniary help received from time to time. Their funds were increased from two sour.-oes—gilts and bequests ; and they need only look at the donation lists to realnie how liberal bands had devised liberal things. Only recently Mr. John I\orth, of Leeds, sent a cheque for a hundred guiness ; and they could never forget the princely donation of £1,000 fromhlr. John Hollams when he presided at the annual festival of 1885, in addition to a sum of £200 contributed by him between 1882 and 18811. Respecting bequests H180. they W°111d remember a legacy of £100 from Mr. Mason, of a similar sum from liir. Cmddock, and of £2,000 from Mr. Appleton. It was singu ar however, that their largest befluests had 0ome_ from three maiden ladios :— £3,000 from Miss Brackenbury in 187?, from Miss Hurst in 1875!, and £5,000 _from Miss Reardon In 1 But, unhappily, there was another side Ito the picture. As lfr. Gregory pointed out, at their last annual festival, there were 14,1000 pg i. citors upon the roll, and but -3,000 subscribing members. _No cssThai; 11,000 solicitors withheld their support from their own association. ' 1:1 ought not so to be. He (thechairmari) bad mentioned Mr. Gregopy, an he would like to commend his well-timed and Judicioiis obilervgaiiolge 0 his professional brethren. There were two special subjects e 6? asked to mention. One was the intended alteration of ati anus‘?iiistead of a half-yearly balance-sheet. The board C0l)!!ld?l'8d i iihlnunst needed reform; and the financial year would, in future, olse on mic , bf of December. The other _Bllb]€Cl§ he had to mention Wells; Z1158 of lher an effort all over the kingdom to raise funds in cee ra 0
cm “I 1°11! directors, and will, they believe, prove advantageous in I
Majesty's Jubilee, to found “ Victoria Annuities.” He said all over the kingdom, because there was scarcely a coimty England or Wales wlnch had not experienced the benefits of the association. He trusted they might be successful. Let them reflect upon the benefits they had received since her Majesty's accession. When t e girl queen came_to the throne railwiiy eiiterprize was in its infancy ; steam navigation in its infancy ; gas in its infancy. There were no telegraphs, no photograpbfi. no electric lights, no omnibnses, no hansoms, no penny steamboats on the Thames, no fine hotels, and not a postage-stamp in the whole world. A provincial town was then a little world in itself, andlmew less of its neighbours than London at the present time knew of Pans _; whiloa farthing riishlight illuminated the houses of the poor._ Surely, if ever a nation had cause for gratitude it was the one to which they belonged; and he (the chairman) was sure the lawyers would not lag behind in manifestations of loyalty. He moved " That the report and statement of accounts for the four months ending December 31, 1886, now_ presented, be received and adopted, and that the same be printed and circulated in the usual way with the proceedings of this meeting."
Mr. EDWIN Hanoaa having seconded the motion, the report was unanimously adopted.
Mr. R. WALL WALL proposed a votc of thanks to the directors and auditors for their services during the past half-year ; this was seconded by Mr. SAMUEL DAY, and carried unanimously.
A vote of thanks to Mr. \V. Enwoon SHIRLEY for so ably presiding at the meeting brought the proceedings to a close.
Gaxaaai. Exanrxarioii or Srvuaurs or riiii Inns or Couar, held at Lincoln's Inn Hall, March 29, 30, and 31 and April 1, 1887.
The Council of Legal Education have awarded to the following students certificates that theyhave satisfactorily passed a public examination :
Arthur William Bainton, Arthur Lionel Baxter, Edward Boyle, Edward Fltzherbert Gwavas Carlyon, Lord Ed ar Algernon Robert Gascoyne Cecil, Edward Maynard Des Champs Shamier, Hugh Robert Eardlsy Childers, Benjamin Arthur Cohen, Hayward Ratclifie Dar-lington, Cecil Outram Gillbanks, Henry Colquhoun Hayter, Charles Lushiiigton Hickley, Louis Johannes J acobsz, Russell James Kerr, Sidney Ernald Ral h Lane, Thomas Charles Bruce Mackintosh-Walker, George Maryon §faryon\Vilson, Robert Metcalf Minton-Senhousa, David Owen, Douglas William Owen, Marshall Harcourt Paine, William Tyrone Power, Khushwakt Raf, Henry St. John Digby Raikes, Henry Goodwin Rooth, Henry Sandbach, Helperius Benedictus Sauer, Henry Schultes Bchultes-Young, Joseph Egeiton Shyngle, Ralph Ililf Simey, Lowji Merwanji Wadia, Thomas Waghorn, Charles Edward Stevenson \Vebb \Vare, Frederick Edward Westherley, John Arthur Williams, and Andrew Brocket Wilson, of the Inner Temple; Southwell George Theobald Bourke, Thomas Douglas, William Arthur Emsley, Arthur George Ford, Herbert Granville Grant, Charles Ormond Hazell, Richard John Hodgaon, Rufus Daniel Isaacs, John Henry Keeling, Reginald Kemp, Thomas Charles Ledlie, Guy Lushington, John James ;MeLean, Michael Stewart Johnstone Macmorran, David Villiers Meager, Harington Morgan, Nal Pleng, James John Parfitt, George Bettesworth Piggott, John Edwin Piper, John Oathcart \\-'ason, James Wilson-Holden, and Henry Woodley Boscawen Wright, of the Middle Temple; Dwarka Nath Banerji, Francis Edward Prescott Decie, Bartle Henry Temple Frere, Alexander Graham, Richard Cotton Walker Hill, John Ewer Jefferson Hogg. Richard Horatio Couch Kent. Walter Baéray Lindley, Henry John Newbolt, John Henry Rlmmer, Arthur Augustus tren-Willett. Richard Watson, and Edward Herbert Widnell, of Lincoln's-inn; and John Joseph Hayden, of Gray’s-inn, Esqs. hghe following students passed a satisfactory examination in Roman
Henry Campbell Alchorne Bingley, George Chivers Bower, Arthur Frederick Burton, Henry Larnoy Cancellor, arteret Fitzgerald Collins, heiineth Campbell Da Costa, Alfred Hamilton Douglas-Hamilton, Albert Frederick Ehrhardt, Thomas Gawthorne, Frank Gover, Robert Fletcher Grant, Alfred Hughes, Bertram Keightley, Henry Gervaise Le Gros, Patrick Peter Joseph Lynch, James Harry Stuart McArthur, George Espec John Manners, Thomas Maude, Sarf:rs_zall Adulali Meer, Samuel Moses, Arthur Carson Roberts, Paul Frederick Simonson, Frederick Follett Younghnsbaiid Thorpe, Lakhamganda Vantmiiri, Edgar Geo§ge Vickers, George Williamson Wallace, Henry 0’Kelly Webber, and alter Addington Willis, of the Inner_T_emple ; James Bell, Lakshman Gangadhar 3115415536, J°_hn Bruce, William Carr, John Nicholas Chester, Robert Augustus Davis, Madan Gopal, Robert John Pottinger Hendricks, George w“‘°*d B11450". Arthur Mason '.l‘ippetts_Jackson, John Penny Lewis
.- b‘ t for debate was a h othetical case in the following Zilims to B. 2,000 tons of iron, the same to be delivered by equal monthly instalments of 500 tons. B. refuses to receive the second 500 tons, and A. gives notice that he no longer intends to be bound by the contract. Is A. thereby freed from his liability to supply the remainder ? ” Mr. Nathan opened in the aflirmative, and cited a number of cases in support of his contention, including the well-known case of Mn-say Steel and Iron Ca. v. Naylor. Mr. Marshall opposed. and was'followed by Messrs. Rogers, Steers, and Abrahams; _while Messrs. l\Ynight, Edmonds, Parsons, and others spoke in the aflirmative. After Mr. hathan had replied, the chairman put the motion to the House, and, the numbers being equal, gave his casting vote in favour of the alflrmative view. The motion was therefore carried by one vote. The sccrctar! for _l-he 116811 Correspondence Department states that there are still vacancies on the third section of that department. It ‘should also _be stated that the time for sending in essays for the Union Prize Competition has been extended to the lst of October.
April 18—Chairman, Mr. Batchelor.-—The subject on the psperfor discussion was, " Does the insertion of the usual attornment c_ usoina mortgage make the document a bill of sale requirmg registralwll Hilde! the Bills of Sale Act?” At the commencement of the debate Mr. Moyle moved the adjournment of the House, owing to there being only thirteen members present. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodall, and to after a short discussion. It is a matter of regret that more interest is not shown in the legal debates, from which stu ents may reap I10 8111811 advantage; and it is to be hoped there will be a larger attendance henceforth.
and Olivant v. Wright as authorities. Mr. Lambert llliffllll Eunzlgjdmg: and Mr. Rawsthorn replied, the chairman gave his decision on