Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][subsumed]

by the in

informatica isadvantage ily, and the

said, in the 261):-"Y; ag that brief, tboard onsequences at the notis ce might be

e universel

el would be

3 bare her the con

ations, je newspapers

termined Brter &

against the Incorporated Law Society, counsel applied, ex parte, to separate property in this reversionary interest, execution could not now , 1887. April 23, 1889. THE SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.

409 ver briefs to

sequent assize until the action is disposed of, unless a brief has

been delivered. ing the pro21. A retainer may be given for a future assize without a retainer

NEW ORDERS, &c. or brief may for the intervening assizes.

PROBATE REGISTRIES. ice given to,

AMENDED RULES, ORDERS, AND INSTRUCTIONS.

By virtue and in pursuance of the provisions of the statutes 20 & retainer, but

21 Vict. c. 77 and 38 & 39 Vict. c. 77, I, the Right Honourable Sir CORRESPONDENCE. proceedings

James Hannen, Knight, President of the Probate, Divorce, and nuoging and ATTORNMENT CLAUSES AND THE BILLS OF SALE ACTS.

Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, with the conclient, tas

currence of the Right Honourable Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Ities, and to

Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and of the Right Honourable ite side. It

Sir, — Will you allow me to call attention to an evil which, it John Duke Baron Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice of England, do assed at the

appears to me, will result from the decision in Hall v. Comfort (35 make and issue the following amended rules and orders for the t frequently

W. R. 48)—that the insertion of the attornment clause in a mort- registrars of the Principal Probate Registry and for the district om different

gage does not make it void under the Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and probate registrars, in respect of non-contentious business, to take time after 1882 ?

effect on and after the 19th day of April, 1887. and 8ppm Will it not be possible, after this decision, for money-lenders and

Dated the 29th day of March, 1887. borrowers to obtain all the advantages of a bill of sale without the

(Signed) JAMES HANNEN. necessity of having a schedule of the goods or the publicity of regis- Approved. tration ? An intending borrower wishes to raise money on his

(Signed) HALSBURY, C. furniture, but is restrained from doing so by the necessity that, if he

COLERIDGE, C.J. gives a bill of sale, it will have to contain a complete schedule of the property and must be registered, and thus be made public. At this AMENDED RULES, ORDERS, AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE REGISTRARS point the recent decision comes to his aid, and, if the house is his

OF THE PRINCIPAL PROBATE REGISTRY AND FOR THE DISTRICT own where the furniture is, or he has a lease which he can get leave

PROBATE REGISTRARS IN NON-CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS. from his landlord to sub-demise or assign (in most cases granted Rule 15 of the Rules, Orders, and Instructions for the registrars without much question) he has only to mortgage the premises to the of the Principal Probate Registry in non-contentious business, dated inoney-lender by a deed containing an attornment clause, and a bill the 30th of July, 1862, and rule 18 of the Rules, Orders, and Instrucof sale, without its drawbacks, is obtained.

tions for the district probate registrars in such business, dated the In many cases the premises mortgaged may be practically valueless 27th of January, 1863, are respectively repealed, save so far as concompared with the furniture and goods therein, which are the real cerns anything done or proceeding taken in accordance with theni, security for the advance. Thus, a document having all the effect of and in place of the said rules it is ordered that the following rules a duly registered bill of sale can be safely relied on; and, what is shall take effect : more, it has the advantage of covering all the after-acquired property Rules 15 and 18. In a grant of probate of the will of a married brought on to the premises. Will not creditors in this way be de- woman, or of the will of a widow made during coverture, or letters frauded, and, in fact, the very objects of the Bills_of_Sale Acts of administration with such wills annexed, it shall not be necessary defeated ?

HENRY J. H. BULL. to recite in the grant or in the oath to lead the same the separate 21, Westcroft square, Ravenscourt Park, W., April 18.

personal estate of the testatrix or the power or authority under which the will has been or purports to have been made. The probate or

letters of administration with will annexed in such cases shall take MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL CHANCERY ACTIONS.

the form of ordinary grants of probate or letters of administration [To the Editor oj the Solicitors' Journal.]

with will annexed without any exception or limitation, and issue to

an executor or other person authorized in usual course of representaSir, — The recent order assigning all Manchester and Liverpool tion to take the same; a surviving husband, however, being entitled Chancery causes raises two curious points.

to the same in preference to the next of kiu of the testatrix in case First, what is to be done with actions begun in Liverpool or of a partial intestacy. The forms of instruments annexed to the Manchester, but afterwards transferred to London, by appearance before-mentioned Rules, Orders, and Instructions for the registrars being entered there or otherwise ?

of the Principal Probate Registry, numbered 12, 13, and 14, and in Secondly, how are questions adjourned from the district registrar the Rules, Orders, and Instructions for the district probate registo the judge to be dealt with, seeing the judge has no chambers ? trars, numbered 13, 14, and 15, and thereby directed to be adopted Will solicitors be heard in court, or must litigants in all cases employ as nearly as the circumstances of the case will allow in respect of the counsel ?

wills of married women, shall cease to be adopted in respect of such In any case, I, for one, see no practical utility in the order, and I wills, except so far as the same may be applicable to oaths sworn can see considerable jealousy and friction arising from it.

before these rules and orders take effect, and also except so far as the

WM. MAUDE. same may be applicable to any second or subsequent grants required Arundel House, Arundel-street, Victoria Embankment,

to complete the representation in cases where limited or special grants London, April 18.

have already issued.
APPORTIONMENT OF DIVIDEND.
[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

CASES OF THE WEEK.
Sir,—I shall feel obliged if any of your correspondents can refer
me to a decision bearing on the following case : -

MACALPIN v. YOUNG-C. A. No. 1, 20th April.
A. bequeathed certain shares to trustees upon trust to pay the MARRIED WOMAN-SEPARATE PROPERTY-VESTED INTEREST IN Re-
income to B. during her life, and afterwards to sell the shares and
divide the proceeds among B.'s children.

The defendant, who was a married woman, on April 14, 1880, gave a 3 received the dividends for the half-year ending December 31, promissory note to the plaintiff. Judgment was signed on that note on the following July, at a time when such shares were quoted “cum certain real property was left to trustees in trust for the testatrix's sister, able on the 1st of September.

be divided between such of the testatrix's nieces as were then surviving. Can the representatives of B. claim out of the purchase-money of Mary Wright died in July, 1886 the shares the proportion of dividend to the death of B. ?

An inquiry having been directed as to the separate estate of the defendant, the master reported that she was in M. A. L.

possession at the time of making the contract and at the time of the

judgment of sufficient separate property to satisfy the debt. It was v. Muttlebury (30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, admitted 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 con

tingent on her surviving the life tenant. It was further contended that the writ of summons, and the learned judge granted leave to serve considered that the interest of the defendant was part of her separate

estate, and was bound by the contract, and his decision was upheld by

:fit or other its style 1

[ocr errors]

proprietas en att whether to

m is dat hip or for of it

Etendez ends to s

[ocr errors]

d be sent that scat endast e

[ocr errors]

MAINDER.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[See Re Duff, Muttlebury 501).- ED. S.J.]

ef is gone

notice of motion for Friday, the 29th inst.

[ocr errors]

410 the Divisional Court (Coleridge, C.J., and Mathew, J.). The defendant of this sum to apply £4,000 and the income thereof in the establishment appealed.

of a soup kitchen for the parish of Shoreditch and of a cottage hospital The Court (Lord Esher, M.R , and LOPES, L.J.) dismissed the appeal. adjoining thereto, in such manner as not to violate the Mortmain Acts, Lord Esher, M.R., said that he was clearly of opinion that the defendant such hospital to be provided with not less than four beds. And he directed had at the time of making the contract a vested interest in remainder, that the income of the remaining £6,000 should be applied in paying which was liable to be divested if she pre-deceased the tenant for life. certain salaries to a resident nurse and a surgeon for the hospital, and That interest vested in her at the moment of the death of the testatrix. otherwise towards the necessities of the hospital, and for the benefit The fact that her interest had now increased by coming into possession on thereof, and of the patients who should from time to time be taken into the death of the life tenant made no difference.

It was The judgment had the it, as his trustees should in their absolute discretion think fit. same effect as a charge on her separate property. LOPBS, L.J., said that decided by the court that the gift was valid under the Mortmain Acts, it was beyond all question that the defendant had at the time of making because it might be carried out either on land already in mortmain or by the contract a vested interest in remaiuder, since it was ready to come inducing some one to give land for the purpose. An inquiry was directed into possession the moment the tenant for life died.-Counsel, Bigham, whether the fund, or any part thereof, could be applied for the establishQ.C, and H. E. Duke ; Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and McClymont. SOLICITORS, ment of a soup kitchen and cottage hospital, and for the benefit of such

The chief Taylor, Hoare, Taylor, f Box, for J. & A. Burton f Scorer Lincoln ; Morton, hospital, in accordance with the directions of the testator, Cutler, & Co.

clerk found that no part of the fund could be so applied, because no

land could be obtained for the purpose in the parish. Kay, J., refused an LINWOOD V. ANDREWS-0. A. No. 2, 19th April.

application to vary the certificate. The testator's next of kin took out a ATTACHMENT-DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY-FIDUCIARY

summons asking that the fund might be paid over to them, on the ground CAPACITY-DEBTORS Act, 1869, s. 4, SUB-Section 3.

that the charitable purpose had failed altogether. Kay, J., held that the

testator had manifested a general intention to benefit the poor of the The question in this case was whether an order for an attachment had parish of Shoreditch, independently of the particular mode of applica. been properly made against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed as his tion which he had pointed out, and that, as that mode could not be property certain foreign Government bonds which were in the possession of carried out, the court would apply the fund cy-près. His lordship accord. the defendant, and brought the action to enforce his claim. An order ingly directed a scheme to be settled in chambers for the application of was made restraining the defendant from parting or dealing with the bonds the fund. if unsold, and from parting or dealing with the proceeds of the bonds if The Court of APPEAL (Cotton, LINDLEY, and Fry, L.JJ.) affirmed sold. A subsequent order continued the injunction, and required the the decision. Cotton, L.J., said that for the purpose of the appeal it defendant, within four days, to deposit the bonds in court, or, if sold, to must be assumed that the fund could not be applied in the manner pay the proceeds into court; and a third order directed an attachment to pointed out in the will. The question was whether the court could apply issue against the defendant for not complying with the order to deposit the doctrine of cy-près. If there was a gift to a particular legatee the the bonds or the proceeds of them. Under the will of his father the legacy failed if the legatee did not or would not take it. But the quesplaintiff was entitled to the bonds on attaining twenty-five, and he tion in the present case was whether the testator had given a legacy to a attained twenty-five on the 23rd of March, 1886. The defendant, who particular institution, or whether he had expressed a general intention to was a trustee of the will, had obtained possession of the bonds, and she benefit the poor of the parish of_Shoreditch, pointing out a particular made an affidavit in which she alleged that they had been given to her by mode of effecting his intention. In the latter case, if the particular in. the plaintiff for her absolute use without any condition whatever; that tention could not be carried out, the court would apply the fund cy.près. she had parted with them long before the action was commenced and In his lordship’s opinion the latter was the true view of the bequest. before she had any idea that proceedings would be taken against her in The testator had expressed an intention to give £10,000 for the benefit of the respect of them, and that she was, therefore, not in a position to comply sick and poor of Shoreditch, and had pointed out the mode in which it with the order to deposit them in court. Kay, J., made an order for was to be done. The gift was not for erecting a particular building in attachment against the defendant. It was objected, on her behalf, that the parish; it was for the parish -not merely in it; it was for the benefit the order was one for the payment of money, and that obedience could of the poor in the parish. It was clear that the testator intended to benenot be enforced by attachment, unless the defendant was acting in a fit the poor of the parish in the particular way which he had pointed out,

fiduciary capacity within the meaning of sub-section 3 of section 4 of if possible, but, at any rate, to benefit them. LINDLEY and FRY, L.JS., the Debtors Act, 1869, which could not be determined till the trial of the concurred. ---COUNSBL, Pearson, Q.C., and Cecil Russell ; Sir R. Webster, action.

A.G., and Ingle Joyce ; Edwin Ward and F. E. Ward. SOLICITORS, The Court of APPEAL (Cotton and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) affirmed the Pattison, Wigg, & Co.; Hare & Co.; Angell, Imbert-Terry, Page. decision. Cotton, L.J., said that the plaintiff had made out a primâ facie case, in answer to which the defendant only said that the plaintiff intended

M. MELACHRINO & CO. v. THE MELACHRINO EGYPTIAN to and did make the gift to her. The court watched such cases with jealousy, unless there was a clear explanation given of a gift to a guardian

CIGARETTE CO.-Chitty, J., 19th April. or trustee. It would be a question for decision at the trial whether such Patents, &c., Act, 1883–TRADE-MARK-INFRINGEMENT INVALID USER. an explanation had been given to the plaintiff as would enable him to understand what he was doing. So far, however, the plaintiff had made tion to restrain the defendants (inter alia) from infringing or colourably

In this case a motion was made by the plaintiffs for an interim injunc. a prima facie case. An order had been made for the defendant to deposit imitating the plaintiffs' registered mark or label. It appeared that the the honds, or, if sold, to pay into court the proceeds of sale. That not plaintiffs had registered a mark for cigarettes consisting of a design, and having been done an order for attachment was made. The attachment had also sought to register three coats of arms, but their application in was ordered on the grounds that the bonds were not deposited and that that respect was refused by the comptroller. The plaintiffs" label con: the proceeds of sale had not been paid in, the defendant being in a sisted of the registered design and the three coats of arms, and the plain: fiduciary position. Having regard to section 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869, tiffs alleged that the defendants had imitated their label by copying some doubt arose as to that, because the question whether the defendant the design and the coats of arms. The defendants, however, submitted was in a fiduciary position was one which would not be decided until the that, as the plaintiffs had never used their mark in a valid manner, but trial of the action. So far, therefore, as the order seemed to decide that only together with matter which had been refused registration, they were question it ought not to stand. But was the court satisfied that the defend- not entitled to protection. ant had made default in depositing the bonds ? So far as the order for attachment depended upon that, it was not affected by the Debtors Act, vitiate their right to have their registered mark protected. It would be

CHITTY, J., said that the plaintiffs' use of the coats of arms did not for the order to deposit the bonds was not an order to pay money. Default splitting hairs to hold that the use of that which was not registrable in order by depositing the bonds. In his lordship's opinion the court was justi- mark of the protection which registration had given it. The defendants fied on the evidence in concluding that it was in the defendant's power to intention to copy was shewn by the circumstance that they had made use deposit the bonds. Her evidence was very unsatisfactory, and his lord of the ccats of arms. ship did not believe the defendant had parted with the bonds when the and Sebastian ; Sir A. Watson, Q.c., and Oswald. SOLICITORS, J. Algernon

He granted the injunction.-Counsel, Romer, Q.O., order was made. The order for attachment was right, but it must be Latham ; Spyer & Son. varied by confining the reasons for it to non-compliance with the order for deposit of the bonds. LINDLEY, L.J., said that the order was not an order Re ALLEN, SIMES v. SIMES—Stirling, J., 19th and 20th April. to pay money within the Debtors Act; it was an order to deposit the bonds, or, if sold, the proceeds. If they were sold it was an order to pay

PRACTICE-ORIGINATING SUMMONS—R. S. C., 1883, LV., 3, 4, 8—APPOINT• money within the Act, but there was no evidence that the bonds were

MENT Or New TRUSTEES-JURISDICTION. sold. Therefore the order was for deposit of the bonds. He believed An originating summons was taken out under ord. 55, rr. 3, 4, in the the defendant had got the bonds—that is, she could get at them if she matter of an estate, asking for general administration 'if and so far as chose.-Counsel, Marten, Q.C., and C. E. Moore ; Ince, Q.O., and Alex necessary, the sanction of the judge to the compromise of probate proander Young. SOLICITORS, T. E. Watkin ; Hyde, Tandy, f Mahon.

ceedings in respect of the estate, and the appointment of new

trustees. An order in terms of the summons was made at chambers, but BISCOE v. JACKSON--O. A. No. 2, 20th April.

the registrar took the objection, founded upon the decision of Kay, J., in CHARITABLE BEQUEST-CY-PRÈS-FAILURE OF PARTICULAR INTENTION OF appoint new trustees upon an originating summons.

Re Gill, Smith v. Gil (34°W. R.'134), that there existed no jurisdiction to TESTATOR,

all the persons This was an appeal from a decision of Kay, J. (35 W. R. 152), the on behalf of the plaintiffs that Re Gill, Smith v. Gill was distinguishable, Whether it could be applied cu-pressa ne contentor, by this wilt, appointed takem ort under the trustee otsin, and the decision was founded uponline the plaintiffs his executors, and directed the to, ou bie such papp on this absence of jurisdiction est act coider those statutes upon an origination residiary estate " as should be pure personal estate and might by law be summons, whereas, in the present case, the summons was

It was submitted

olishment

hospital lain Acts, e dirated

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

411 W. R. 26, 30 Ch. D. 231), and there was power under the general juris many ways. Since the last report in October, 1886, fifty-nine new diction of the court to appoint trustees as being a judgment which the members have been admitted. The aggregate number of solicitors in nature of the case required within the meaning of ord. 55, r, 8.

England and Wales now enrolled as members of the association is 3,003, STIRLING, J., held that the distinction between Re Gill, Smith v. Gill and of whom 1,068 are life, and 1,940 annual subscribers. Fifty-one life the present case was well founded, and that, all persons interested in the members are also contributors of annual subscriptions ranging from one trust being parties to the application, the order was rightly made upon to ten guineas each. During the four months the general receipts of the the originating summons in the exercise of the general jurisdiction of the association, from all sources, amounted to £1,003 15s. 4d., in which sum court.-COUNSEL, Waggett; Daniel Jones, SOLICITORS, "Courtenay, Croome, is included a liberal donation of £105 from Mr. John North, solicitor, Son, & Finch; Nichol, Son, Jones,

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

Mason's legacy of £100, the invested capital of the association now consists
SOLICITORS STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS.

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. 19th April— GEORGE SPACKMAN,

During the same period many distressing cases were considered by the 20th April-AUGUSTUS HENRY MAULE.

directors, and a sum of £825 was distributed in grants. Of this amount 20th April-CHARLES RICHARD COPEMAN,

$270 was given in the relief of six cases of member's families, and £555 in 20th April-G. B. H. DREW.

twenty-seven cases of non-members and the families of non-members. 20th April–CHARLES ARTHUR SLADER.

The audited statement of accounts shews that at the close of the year ending December 31st, 1886, a balance of £115 78. 3d. remained to the credit of the association at the Union Bauk of London, together with

a further balance of £207 10s. 5d. belonging to the Reardon Trust MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL CHANCERY

Account; the sum of £15 remained in the hands of the secretary. While

renewing their appeal for the individual help of members in obtaining ACTIONS.

new subscribers to the association, the board desire to record their thanks MR. JUSTICE KBKEwich, on taking his seat in court on Tuesday, addressed to those local committees and other gentlemen who have lately taken up

the cause. Mr. Barber, Q.O., the leader of the court, with reference to the recent

In Newcastle-upon-Tyne many members have recently been ord. 35, r. 6a, made under the powers of the new clause of rule 9 of order added to the list through the kind efforts of two members of the associa5 (ante, pp. 140, 389),

tion. The result of the work undertaken by the Cardiff district local His lordehip said, "I wish to make some remarks for the convenience from the second annual report forwarded by Mr. G. F. Hill, the hon. sec.,

committee also continues to be encouraging. The following is an extract of the bar and the public concerning the ord. 35, r. 6a, and which was recently completed by the Lord Chancellor. By the order in question it and signed by Mr. R. W. Griffith, the chairman :-Your committee was provided that every cause or matter in the said (Chancery) Division have, since their last report, canvassed the town of Newport (Mon.) for thereafter commenced in the District Registry of Liverpool or the District subscriptions to this association, and are glad to say that they have Registry of Manchester should be marked with the name of such judge of cute the work in that town, as there are many solicitors there who, your

already secured fourteen new members; but they intend to further prosethe Chancery Division as the Lord Chancellor might by order from time to time direct. The Lord Chancellor has directed, by an order dated committee feel persuaded, have but to be asked in order readily to join the 5th of April, 1887, (see ante, p. 392) that on and after the 18th of have completed their efforts in that town they intend turning their

this society. They scarcely met with a single refusal ; and when they April, 1887, every cause and matter in those registries in the Chancery attention to Swansea, Pontypridd, Bridgend, and other places. Your Division are to be marked with my name and to come before me, and I shall therefore have to see these matters through their various members of the profession is of very little use in inducing them to

committee are more than ever satisfied that the sending of circulars to stages. I shall say nothing now about the machinery for trial of causes, subscribe to the association. Such valued efforts cannot fail to bring because business here will not be interfered with, as when ten or more causes proceeding in those registries are ready to be tried, some judge earnestly hoped for throughout the kingdom. With much pleasure the

much benefit to the association, and an extension of such organizations is will be sent down from London, say in June, to try them.. What I board have to announce that E. J. Bristow, Esq., has kindly accepted specially wish to advert to is the interlocutory business, such as motions, poti- their invitation to preside at the twenty-seventh anniversary festival of tions, and adjoumed summonses. As the order only actually came into effect the association, to be held on Thursday, June 9th next, at the Hôtel me, and in any case some further rules may be required before there is Métropole, London. The board venture' to hope that members of the any accumulation of work, but what I wish ascertained now is what day fitting celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee Year, and that a hearty and

association, and the profession generally, will regard this festival as a Saturday has been suggested, and I would like your advice as to what general response will be given to Mr. Bristow's advocacy of the claims of would suit your convenience and that of other leaders, and also, of stewards will please send them to the secretary as early as possible.”

the association. Gentlemen willing to add their names to the list of course, that of officers of the court. I must also give some time to chamber business; that can be done by my rising two hours earlier

The CHAIRMAN, in moving the adoption of the report, said that the object locutory business. Assuming Saturday be fixed for such matters, and Wales, and their wives, widows, and families.". Never was the assoloc uthe day before the day which may be set apart for the inters of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association was stated in a single sentence, I wish your assistance in deciding whether we are to put in any ordinary ciation more needed. It was a common notion that lawyers were prosinterlocutory work? Many other questions may arise, and I do not alle perous when other people were suffering. Nothing could be further from bhould be glad if you would consult Mr. Warmington and other leaders depressed when other people were depressed. Never, probably, within than even connsel how the convenience and interest of suitors will be best distressing cases of solicitors in “ necessitous circumstances," of widows Practising in this court, your juniors, and your clients, who know more the experience of business men, had there been greater depression in every having this advice in order that the usefulness of this court, which has anxious consideration, the directors spared neither time nor trouble in Division from the scandal of a block of business, may be unimpaired, and had been brightened and hearts relieved by the grants they made. The $0 that this new business may be despatched with the least possible inter- board remembered with pleasure the pecuniary help received from time to his lordship for the early intimation he had given concerning the business, and they need only look at the donation lists to realize how liberal in their power to aid in deciding on the most beneficial arrangement to Leeds, sent a cheque for a hundred guineas ; and they could never forget

the princely donation of £1,000 from Mr. John Hollams when he presided at the annual festival of 1885, in addition to a sum of £200 contributed by him between 1882 and 1884. Respecting bequests also, they would

remember a legacy of £100 from Mr. Mason, of a similar sum from Mr. LAW SOCIETIES.

Craddock, and of £2,000 from Mr. Appleton. It was singular

however, that their largest bequests had come SOLICITORS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

from

maiden ladies : £3,000 from Miss Brackenbury in 1873, $500 The fifty-eighth half-yearly general meeting of this association was from Miss Hurst in 1879, and £5,000 from Miss Reardon in 1882. held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on Wednesday, the But, unhappily, there was another side to the pieture. As Mr. 20th inst., Mr. W. EDWOOD 'SHIRLEY (Doncaster) in the chair.

Gregory pointed out, at their last annual festival, there were 14,000 soliLehe following report, as circulated among the members present, was 11,000 "Solicitors withheld their support from their own association. That eigte en the rule of the association, have pleasure'in presenting their afty he would like to commend his well-timed and judicious observations to sighth report. The statement of accounts appended hereto shews the his professional brethren. There were two special subjects he had been Hon hadirectors, in future, will present a balance andere allecem in staat iniktead of half-yearly balance-sheetin terhe hoard considered it a muchSi falt- yearly as formerly, and the hinancial years bent cause all becentement ineeded reform and the balancial years woulta, on elutare, close on the sist etalon of your directors, and beten, they believes pebre camerantageoiden af Det er bari opere the mingdalet he had to rimastim celebrations on her Station This arrangement has been cometed ever weihe clase run December ne edecemberm The other f rabjeet he had to mention was the urgency of

[graphic]

OLICING

TPTIAS

ther

Majesty's Jubilee, to found “ Victoria Anpuities." He said all over the son.—The subject for debate was a hypothetical case in the following kingdom, because there was scarcely a county in England or Wales which terms:—"A. sold to B. 2,000 tons of pig iron, the same to be delivered had not experienced the benefits of the association. He trusted they might by equal monthly instalments of 500 tons. B, refuses to receive the be successful. Let them reflect upon the benefits they had received since second 500 tons, and A. gives notice that he no longer intends to be bound her Majesty's accession. When the girl queen came to the throne rail. by the contract. Is A. thereby freed from his liability to supply the way enterprize was in its infancy; steam navigation in its infancy; remainder ?” Mr. Nathan opened in the affirmative, and cited a number gas in its infancy. There were no telegraphs, no photographs, of cases in support of his contention, including the well-known case of no electric lights, no omnibuses, no hansoms, no penny steam- Mersey Steel and Iron Co. v. Naylor. Mr. Marshall opposed, and was fol. boats on the Thames, no fine hotels, and not a postage-stamp in the whole lowed by Messrs. Rogers, Steere, and Abrahams; while Messrs. Knight, world. A provincial town was then a little world in itself, and knew less Edmonds, Parsons, and others spoke in the affirmative. After Mr. Nathan of its neighbours than London at the present time knew of Paris ; while a had replied, the chairman put the motion to the House, and, the numbers farthing rushlight illuminated the houses of the poor. Surely, if ever a being equal, gave his casting vote in favour of the affirmative view. The nation had cause for gratitude it was the one to which they belonged; motion was therefore carried by one vote. The secretary for the Legal and he (the chairman) was sure the lawyers would not lag behind in mani. Correspondence Department states that there are still vacancies on the festations of loyalty. He moved “That the report and statement of third section of that department. It should also be stated that the time accounts for the four months ending December 31, 1886, now presented, for sending in essays for the Union Prize Competition has been extended be received and adopted, and that the same be printed and circulated in to the 1st of October. the usual way with the proceedings of this meeting.”

April 18-Chairman, Mr. Batchelor.-The subject on the paper for Mr. EDWIN HEDGBR having seconded the motion, the report was discussion was, “Does the insertion of the usual attornment clause in a unanimously adopted. Mr. R. WALL WALL proposed a vote of thanks to the directors and mortgage make the document a bill of sale requiring registration under

At the commencement of the debate Mr. Moyle auditors for their services during the past half-year ; this was seconded by moved the adjournment of the House, owing to there being only thirteen Mr. SAMUEL Day, and carried unanimously.

members present. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodall, and agreed A vote of thanks to Mr. W. EDWOOD SHIRLEY for so ably presiding at

to after a short discussion. It is a matter of regret that more interest is the meeting brought the proceedings to a close.

not shewn in the legal debates, from which students may reap no small advantage ; and it is to be hoped there will be a larger attendance henceforth.

Law STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. - March 22-Chairman, Mr. W. Van LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

Sommer.-The subject for discussion was, “In an action for damages

founded on negligence, must the plaintiff prove, not only negligence of the COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION,

defendant, but also the absence of contributory negligence on his part?” EASTER EXAMINATION, 1887.

Mr.J.M. McCarthy opened the debate in the affirmative, and was supported

by Messrs. W. H. Quarrell and J. J. Woolcombe. The negative was sup. General EXAMINATION OF STUDENTS OF THE Inns or Court, held at Lin- ported by Messrs. G. F. Berney, R. McNab, w. G. Hawtin, W. M. coln's Inn Hall, March 29, 30, and 31 and April 1, 1887.

Woodhouse, C. S. Magee, W. Mackenzie, and 'W. H. Ayson. After the The Council of Legal Education have awarded to the following students opener had replied, the chairman put the question to the society, when it certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination : was negatived by a large majority

Arthur William Bainton, Arthur Lionel Baxter, Edward Boyle, Edward
Fitzherbert Gwavas Carlyon, Lord Edgar Algernon Robert Gascoyne held with the United Law Students' Debating Society. The subject for

March 29_Chairman, Mr. Bateman Napier, LL.D.-A joint debate was
Cecil, Edward Maynard Des Champs Chamier, Hugh Robert Eardley debate was: “That it is the duty of the Government, whilst granting to
Childers, Benjamin Arthur Cohen, Hayward Ratcliffe Darlington, Cecil Ireland all reasonable remedial measures, strenuously to oppose any
Outram Gullbanks, Henry Colquhoun Hayter, Charles Lushington Hickley, movement tending towards Home Rule and the repeal of the union, and
Louis Johannes Jacobsz, Russell James Kerr, Sidney Ernald Ralph Lane, for this purpose to firmly administer the existing law." Mr. A., K.
Wilson, Robert Metcalf Minton-Senhouse, David Owen, Douglas William Messrs. Stewart Smith, J. D. Crawford, Whitehouse, and J. C. Wheeler
Henry St. John Digby Raikes, Henry Goodwin Rooth, Henry Sandbach, motion, which, when put to the two societies, was carried by a very large
Helperius Benedictus Sauer, Henry Schultes Schultes-Young, Joseph
Egerton Shyngle, Rulph Iliff Simey, Lowji Merwanji Wadia, Thomas

majority. Waghorn, Charles Edward Stevenson Webb Ware, Frederick Edward April 19–Chairman, Mr. E. Todd.-Mr. T. B. Napier, LL D., opened Weatherley, John Arthur Williams, and Andrew Brocket Wilson, of the the debate : "That the new Procedure Rules of the House of Commons, Inner Temple ; Southwell George Theobald Bourke, Thomas Douglas, as originally proposed by the Government, are an insufficient remedy for William Arthur Emsley, Arthur George Ford, Herbert Granville Grant, the evils attempted to be removed." Messrs. J. Lethriby, Cornelius Charles Ormond Hazeli, Richard John Hydgson, Rufus Daniel Isaacs, Wheeler, o. A. Markham, and J. D. Crawford took part in the debate. John Henry Keeling, Reginald Kemp, Thomas Charles Ledlie, Guy Lush The motion was carried. ington, John James McLean, Michael Stewart Johnstone Macmorran, David' Villiers Meager, Harington Morgan, Nai Pleng, James John Showell Rogers, M.A., LL.D. — The case of Thomas . Quartermaine fantes

BIRMINGHAM Law Students' Society.–March 29-Chairman, Mr. W. Wason, James Wilson-Holden, and Henry Woodley Boscawen Wright, Lecision of the Court of Appeal, argued that the facts of the case did not of the Middle Temple ; Dwarka Nath Banerji, Francis Edward Prescott shew that there was any defect in the plant,” &c., within the meaning Walker Hill, John Ewer Jefferson Hogg, Richard Horatio Couch Kent, Rayner, J. B. Scurrah, and A. 1. Adcock followed on the same side, Ford Augustus Saltren-Willett, Richard Watson, and Edward Herbert Widnell, by the Act, and that consequently the case of Weblin : Ballarde was

The following students passed a satisfactory examination in Roman supported byo Messis. F. S. Pearson, w. J. Jeffery, A. C. Hayes, and the law:

Henry Campbell Alchorne Bingley, George Chivers Bower, Arthur and, putting the question to the meeting, the negative secured a majority
Frederick Burton, Henry Larnoy Cancellor, Carteret Fitzgerald Collins, of one vote.
Kenneth Campbell Da Costa, Alfred Hamilton Douglas-Hamilton, Albert
Frederick Ehrhardt, Thomas Gawthorne, Frank Gover, Robert Fletcher

PRESTON AND LANCASTER LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETIES.—March 10—Chair.
Grant, Alfred Hughes, Bertram Keightley, Henry Gervaise Le Gros, man, Mr. John Tomlinson, solicitor. –The case for argument was mas
Patrick Peter Joseph Lynch, James Harry Stuart McArthur, George Espec follows : -“ A testator who died in 1868 by his will, dated in the same
Arthur Carson Roberte, Paul Frederick Simonson, Frederick Follett for lite. When she dies my three sons, A., B., and O., and my daughter
Lounghusband Thorpe, Lakhamganda Vantmuri, Edgar George Vickers, D., are to have it in equal shares ; but, if any of them shall die without
George Williamson Wallace, Henry O'Kelly Webber, and Walter kad issue, his or her interest shall go to the survivors of survivor equally;
Bhadbade, John Bruce, William Carr, John Nicholas Chaster, Robert without issue ; C. is a bachelor; and D., who was married to her present
Augustus Davis, Madan Gopal, Robert John Pottinger Hendricks, George husband at the date of the will has issue. Are C. and D., with the ero mo
Waford Hudson, Arthur Mason Tippetts Jackson, John Penny Lewis currence of her husband, entitled to have the fund now paid over. I.
Seva Ram, William Crichton Slagg, Mansel Teixeira, and Alfred Teak Rawsthorn, J. Bell, and G. Cartwrighete represented the Preston Society,
kinson, Nandlol Banerji, Alexander Millington" 'Begs, Hewitt Bostock; of the case of O'Maroney v. Burdett, that the words “die without is het
Gordon, Ronald John McNeill, Frederick' Scott Olivar, o Richard ebame the fund on the death of the widow, and also that the accrued sbare o
Prall, Alfred Roscoe, and James Weir, of Lincoln's-inn; and James
Knott, of Gray's-inn, Esqs.

B. would pass. Messrs. J. E. Lambert, J. Tilly, jun., and H. D. Wilson, the representatives of the Lancaster Society, upheld the negative como

tention, arguing that the words used in the will were an express LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETIES.

direction to distribute the fund, and quoted the cases of Edwards v. Edwards United Law Students' Society.—March 21—Chairman, Mr. Rawlin- and Mis ma wothorn Teplied, the chairman gave his decision on the cave,

« PreviousContinue »