Page images

Ir and the tance, and le differcat here. Sit al rule, 10 ded on the al title had

olved upon

[ocr errors]

titled the

: legal title

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

judgment as to the principles which should regulate the adjustment of church where the liturgy and rites of the Church of England are used or the rights of parties interested in the mining plant of the Dudley Estates. observed.” The testator gave his residuary real and personal estate to It appeared that the late Lord Dudley was tenant for life of the family his executor and trustee, on trust for conversion, and out of the proceeds estates and mining plant, with power of working the mines and collieries. to pay testamentary and general expenses, debts, and legacies, and to In 1845, when he entered upon the estates, the mining plant was valued at “pay the residue of such moneys unto the vicar and churchwardens some £167,000, and at his death the value exceeded £700,000, the increase for the time being of the Priory and Christ Church of Bridlington, to be being due to mining plant, &c., supplied by the late earl out of his applied by them towards the choir fund or a new clock for the tower,

according to the discretion of my said trustee.” The chief clerk found CHITTY, J., after holding that the interest of the late earl under the that there were two churches at Bridlington-St. Mary's Priory Church will which constituted the settlement was a right of enjoyment in the and Christ Church-with separate vicars and church wardens; that the chattels, and not a right to carry on a business, and, therefore, that his former required a new clock in its tower, but that the latter did not; and position with respect to the trustees of the will was that of a donee of con that a reasonable sum to expend in providing such new clock was £200. sumable chattels, said that, as regarded the rights of the late earl, the The testator's residuary estate comprised pure personalty, impure pertenant for life of the settled estates, and those of his successor in respect sonalty, and real estate—the pure personalty being of very small amount of the mining plant, the view he took was that the machinery which had The questions were whether the providing a new clock in a church tower been annexed to the soil for the purpose of rendering the minerals mer was within the purposes of the Act of George III.; and whether, if so, the chantable, if such machinery was capable of being removed therefrom by whole £200 could be paid out of the impure personalty. disturbing the soil without destroying the land, was machinery which NORTH, J., held that the gift was void so far as related to the choir fund, could not be said to be so attached to the land as to become part of it and but that the providing of a new clock was within the Act of George III. belong to the owner of the land, but was to be deemed to be trade fixtures It was certainly as much within the purposes of that Act as the providing which passed to the executor as personalty (Wake v. Hall, 31 W. R. 585, of a belfry and bells, which had been held to be within the Act. His 8 App. Cas. 195). Upon that principle he held that the executors were lordship also held that the whole £200 could be paid out of impure perentitled to remove new blast furnaces erected by the late earl for the sonalty.-COUNSEL, C. T. Simpson ; Warrington ; Nalder. SOLICITORS, purposes of smelting the iron ore gained from the estates. To hold other- Crossman, Crossman, & Prichard ; Collyer-Bristow & Co. wise would be to produce the evil pointed out by Lord Hardwicke in Lawton v. Lawton (3 Atk. 14) - namely, to discourage tenants for life from erecting mining machinery. It had been said that the nature of blast

Re THE TUNNEL MINING CO.--North, J., 29th April. furnaces, their mode of construction and annexation to the soil, was COMPANY-WINDING UP-CONTRIBUTORY-SHARES ISSUED AS FULLY PAID opposed to the view taken. He, however, was of opinion that they were UP-REGISTRATION OF CONTRACT—COMPANIES Act, 1867, s. 25. so many large machines for smelting iron, and, as they were capable of being removed without any material destruction of the land, he held that

The question in this case was whether certain shares in the company, as trade fixtures they passed to the executors. He took the same view which had been issued as fully paid up, were, in the winding up of the with regard to calcining kilns, to fixed power engines, and the sheds company, to be treated as shares on which nothing had been paid, on the which protected them. As to a railway connecting the collieries, and registered as required by section 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, " at or

ground that no contract for their issue as fully paid-up shares had been erected by the late earl, he was of opinion that the rails and sleepers before the issue of the shares. P. sold some mining property to the were removable fixtures. As to the measure of value, it had been said by the executors that the present earl should be debited with the price of the company in consideration of £500 cash and 1,000 £1 paid-up shares. He fixtures as part of a going concern, and it had been said on behalf of the

attended a meeting of the directors on April 18, 1886, at which an agreepresent earl that, as the executors had merely a right to remove and 10,000, was signed and sealed.

ment for the issue to him of 1,000 fully paid-up shares, numbered 9,001 to could be compelled to remove, they were only entitled to a breaking up that he might file it with the Registrar of Joint-stock Companies, and a cer

The agreement was handed over to him, price. However, he thought that the fair measure of value would be a mean between the two extremes.-COUNSEL, Romer, Q.C., and Farwell; Ren- advised him that the contract ought to have been filed before the shares

tificate of the shares was also handed to him. P. went to his solicitor, who shaw, Q.C., and Willis Bund; Sir Arthur Watson, Q.C., and Herbert were issued. It was then too late in the afternoon to get it filed, and he Robertson. SOLICITORS, Benbow, Salthill, $ Tryon.

got it filed the next morning. His name having been put on the list of

contributories as the holder of 1,000 unpaid shares, he moved to have his Re E. C. POWDER CO. (LIM.)—Ohitty, J., 30th April. name removed. COMPANY – REDUCTION OF CAPITAL – NOTICE TO CREDITORS COMPANIES

NORTH, J., held that the shares must be treated as paid up. The word Acts, 1867 AND 1877-GENERAL ORDERS, March, 1868, R. 5.

"at” in section 25 must have some meaning; it could not mean that the In this case a petition was presented for the reduction of the capital issued, or that the parties were to go to the registrar's office and there

registrar was to be present and file the contract when the shares were of the company by writing off paid-up capital which had been lost. issue the shares simultaneously with the filing of the contract. P. had Nearly all the shares of the company had been issued and were fully paid gone to file the contract as soon as he could. In his lordship’s opinion up, and it was proposed to reduce the capital by reducing the nominal value of the shares from £5 to £3.

there was practically one continuous transaction involving both the issue It was stated that there were no credi

of the shares and the filing of the contract. The contract was, in subtors of the company, and the court was therefore asked for an order as in stance, filed "at” the time of the issue of the shares. — Counsel, Grosvenor Seton on Decrees, 4th ed., p. 1462, stating that the advertisement of the petition had been dispensed with, and confirming the reduction.

Woods ; Bramwell Davis. SOLICITORS, Snell, Son, f Greenip; E. Smith CHitty, J., said that the practice was not to uniformly dispense with

$ Co. advertisement of the petition. To do that would be to set aside the pro

BREWSTER v. PRIOR-Stirling, J., 3rd May. visions of the Legislature. The court in each case must exercise its discretion. In the case before him he made the order as asked. ---COUNSEL, Attachment_Default-Possession or Control—Not so APPEARING ON Romer, Q C.; Micklem. Solicitors, Micklem, Hollingworth, Monkland.


In this case a question arose whether it is necessary, in order that an Re G. HARRIS (DECEASED), HARRIS v. HARRIS-Chitty, J., 3rd order for payment of money may be enforceable by attachment, that it and 4th May.

should state on the face of it that the person ordered to pay is a trustee PRACTICE RECEIVER — ADMINISTRATION

or person in a fiduciary capacity, and that the money which he is ordered EX PARTE APPLICATION BEFORE

to pay is a “sum in his possession or under his control,” or whether ADMINISTRATION JUDGMENT.

those matters may be proved aliunde. By the judgment, dated the 28th of Tin this case an ex parte application was made by the plaintiff in a credi- February, 1887, the defendant was ordered on or before the 13th of tor's administration action for a receiver, on the ground that the March, 1887, to pay £500 and interest to the plaintiffs Sidney Brewster and preferring creditors when the estate was insolvent. The plaintiff not state that the defendant was a trustee or person acting in a fiduciary defendant, who had obtained letters of administration, was paying debts and Richard Brewster, as trustees of a certain settlement. The order did einant ' JOURNAL, 360) was referred to as being an authority to the effect the defendant made default în payment, and the plaintiffs now moved that the court would not accede to such an application, in that respect for leave to issue a writ of attachment against him. overruling the dicta of Jessel, M.R., in European Association v. Radcliffe (26 W. R. 417, 7 Ch. D. 733).

May 3.-STIRLING, J., said that the cases of Middleton v. Chichester DOHERTY, J., said that the court could not accede to such an ex parte shewed that in order to entitle the plaintiffs to a writ of attachment the application unless a case of waste of assets was shewn.° The law allowed defendant must be a trustee, and must have the money in question in his

aliadministrator or executor to prefer one creditor to another, and prima possession or under his control. It might be a good rule of practice that en betond He gave leave to serve short notice of motion. --coussin, poz: appeared upon the face of it. According to the present practice, how

ever, the person who had obtained the order was at liberty to shew,

otherwise than from the order, that it was grounded upon the fact that Re HENDRY, WATSON v. BLAKENEY-North, J., 28th April.

the trustee had the money in his possession or under his control. His CHARITABLE GIFT—MortMain-Building or Repairing of Cuurcu-Gift bad bien linformed by him that the judgment was based upon the "con. Bovisions of the Mortmain actual theorghet be, Why wirtus cep the church anded the matter, and the writ of attachment must issue, but in view of

Ovis auestion in this case was whether a gift by will was excepted from the appropriated for the particular purpose for which it was held. That cones not exceeding £500, and"Vand motbesc eatintorito genere, code and it would be kept back for a week ble betwe, Hastings, Q.o., and Underhill

[ocr errors]

towards the erecting, rebuilding, repairing, purchasing, or providing any w D. Rawling. Solicitons, Wainwright & Bailie , Maude.

under & warrant of commitment issued

In the Divisional Court Park did not appear, and it appeared from between a solicitor and his client, but only to what passes between them £11 10s., and on May 6 he received a letter from Park enclosing a cheque V.O., said: “Where a solicitor is party to a fraud, no privilege attaches to applied to for an explanation of his conduct by the Incorporated

a fraud is no part of his duty as solicitor; and I think it c-ul as little be 1887, notice of the present motion was served on him. On February 22,

means of evading the law." Those cases were both of high authority, and CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

they had both been approved by the Court for Crown Cases Reserved in Re POSTLETHWAITE, POSTLETHWAITE ». RICKMAN-North, J., Reg. v. Cox (14'Q. B. D. 153, 33 W. R. 396). Secondly, both R. and T.

In his lordship's were acting together in relation to the trust estate. 2nd May.

opinion it was not open to trustees to act together in such a way—the one PRODECTION OF DOCUMENTS— PRIVILEGE-PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS-acting as the professional adviser of the otter-as to close the mouth of TRUSTEE-SOLICITOR AND CLIENT.

either as to matters relevant to the trust. If they did so they must take A question arose in this case as to the production by trustees of certain the consequence of their communications not being treated as privileged. documents for which they claimed privilege. A testator, who died in 1843, Suppose one of the cestuis que trustent had assigned his interest, and notice devised and bequeathed all his real and personal estate to three trustees, of the assignment had been given only to R., and that T. had been, when P., R., and T., upon trust for sale and conversion, and to hold the pro- he was acting as R.'s solicitor, informed by him of the assignment; ceeds of sale upon the trusts therein declared ; and he appointed the same could he decline to answer whether he had received notice of the assignthree persons executors. P. was one of the beneficiaries under the will; ment on the ground that he was acting as R.'s solicitor? In his lordship's T. was a solicitor. In January, 1854, the trustees entered into an agree- opinion he could not. The notice would be to him as trustee, and he ment for the sale of a farm, which formed part of the testator's real estate, would be bound to disclose it. If trustees were acting together, not to W. for £1,620. W. was also to take the stock on the farm at a valua- fraudulently, but unfairly, to their cestuis que trustent, it would be a novel tion. On the 24th of March, 1854, the three trustees executed a convey rule to say that they were entitled to retain in their own bosoms what had ance of the farm to W., who at the same time paid them £1,814, which occurred, because one of them had been acting as solicitor for the other. was made up of the purchase-money, interest thereon, and the amount of Thirdly, in the present case, accepting the statements of the executors in their the valuation of the stock. In June, 1854, W. conveyed the farm to R. defence, R. and T. in what they did before the sale to W. were acting as for £1,831. In 1874 R. sold the farm at a large profit. This action was co-vendors to him, and, if so, what ground was there for saying that there brought by the representatives of P. (who had died in 1871) against the was any relation of solicitor and client between them which entitled their executors of R. (who had died in 1886) and T. The statement of claim communications to any professional privilege? The executors' own statealleged that in the matter of the agreement for sale to him W. was a ments put them out of court. His lordship had, moreover, with the assent trustee for R., and was put forward by R. as the purchaser, for the pur- of the parties, looked at the documents in question, and from his inspec. pose

of concealing from P. and the other persons interested in the testator's tion of them he was clearly of opinion that they ought to be produced. estate that R. was the real purchaser, and in consequence of his having Tle executors would be at liberty to seal up any parts which were been advised that he, being a trustee of the will, could not purchase the irrelevant to the matters in issue, and a week would be allowed them property. It was further alleged that T. acted as solicitor for himself to consider whether they would appeal.-Counsel, Cookson, Q.O., and and his co-trustees and executors in the conversion and winding up of the A. A. Terrell ; Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and Rowden. Solicitors, Thos. Edwards ; testator's estate (according to the direction of the testator contained in the Randall & Bucknill. will), and that the terms of the pretended sale to W. were settled by R. and T., and that P. assented thereto and signed the agreement, in the faith and

GUY v. CHURCHILL-. A. No. 2, 4th May. belief that W. was a bona fide purchaser of the property, and that R. and T. were acting independently in the interests of the persons interested in Solicitor-LIEN FOR Costs-- PROPERTY “RECOVERED OR PRESERVED"the testator's estate, and in ignorance of the fact that R. was the real pur

SOLICITORS Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127), s. 28. chaser of the property. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that, in the matter of the contract of January, 1954, and the conveyance of the 24th of At the trial of the action Stirling, J., dismissed it, with costs to be paid

In this case a novel point was raised as to a solicitor's lien for costs. March, 1854, W. acted as and was trustee for R.; that the contract and by the plaintiff to the defendant. On appeal the decision was reversed, conveyance were not binding on the persons beneficially interested under and th a Court of Appeal ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff his the will; that the executors of R. and his estate and the defendant T. were jointly and severally liable to account for and make good to the had paia to the defendant in pursuance of the order of Stirling, I; The

costs of the appeal, and also to repay to the plaintiff the costs which he beneficiaries the profits realized by R. by the enjoyment and resale of the costs to be thus repaid amounted to £298. The plaintiff had become property purchased by him, and that the defendants might be ordered bankrupt, and his solicitors applied to the Court of Appeal by original to account for and pay the same accordingly; that the executors of R. motion, asking that the defendant might be ordered to pay the taxed costs might admit assets of R. sufficient to satisfy what should be found due of the 'appeal to the applicants, instead of to the plaintiff, and that the from his estate, or that his estate might be administered by the court. The applicants might be declared entitled to a lien on the £298 in respect of executors of R., by their defence, denied the allegations of the plaintiffs, the difference between the plaintiffs' costs of the appeal as between party and said that W. was a perfectly bona fide independent purchaser of the property at the full value and for his own benefit alone, without any trust,

and party, and his costs as between solicitor and client. This difference agency, or understanding in favour of R., and that the terms of the sale

was alleged to amount to £159. It was urged that the £298 had been were not settled by R. and T., except in the proper and ordinary way, as

recovered” for the plaintiff through the exertions of his solicitors by co-vendors of the property with P., and that R. and T. acted throughout for the costs of the appeal, either at common law, or at any rate under

means of the appeal, and that the solicitors were entitled to a lien upon it independently in the interest of the persons interested in the estate. The section 28 of the Solicitors’ Act, 1860. The official receiver in the bank; objected to produce certain letters and copies of letters and correspondence party costs of the appeal paid to them, but he disputed the right to the between T. and R. in 1853 and 1854, also two bills of costs—the one from lien asked for. August, 1842, to September, 1854, the other from April to June, 1854 ; each of which was described as paid by R. to T. for business transacted as

The Court (Cotton, LINDLEY, and Bowen, L.JJ.) held that the solicitors solicitor for R. (and not for the trustees) between the dates mentioned.

were entitled to the lien, and ordered that the extra costs (to be taxed The executors objected to produce the letters on the ground that they the $298; that out of the residue of that sum the costs of the present

as between solicitor and client) should be paid to the solicitors out of were professional conımunications of a confidential character between R. application should be paid ; and that the ultimate balance should be paid and T., in which T. acted professionally for R., and as his private solicitor, in the official receiver. Corton, L.J., said that the point was a nice charged against and paid for by R. personally out of his own moneys, and whichana solicitor mas allowed. 'lien for his costs on property recovered." were made with the object of enabling T. to give R. (as a private in- by means of his exertions applied. As a result of the appeal tha.cenate ance ; and that in such communications T. acted as such private solicitor the client should not get the fruits of his solicitor's exertions withantes of R., and in no other capacity. And the executors objected to produce paying him the proper remuneration for his services, private capacity, acting professionally for R. as a private individual for not the money ought to pay the expense of getting it. Bowen, The cliente

LINDLEY, L.J., concurred. Those who and at the expense of R., and of no other person, and contained profes- be the same opinight the thought that this sum had resulted to the cliente sional communications of a confidential character between R. and T. The plaintiffs took out a summons for the production of the letters and the

as the fruit of the solicitors" labours. --COUNSEL, L. E. Pyke ; Muir bills of costs.

Mackenzie ; Buckley, Q.C.

SOLICITORS, Irvine $ Hodges ; Aldridge ;

Hollams, Son, f Coward. First, having regard to the case alleged by the statement of chain (which Re ALFRED PARK, A SOLICITOR, Ex parte THE INCORPORATED he assumed to be true, but only for the present purpose), he thought that no professional privilege could protect from production communications

LAW SOCIETY-0. A. No. 1, 4th May. made in pursuance of a scheme such as was alleged. Follett v. Jefferyes (1 Sim. N. S. 3) was very much in point. In that case Lord Cranwo

This was an appeal by Alfred Park, a solicitor of East Retford, from an

order of the Divisional Court (Day and Wills, JJ.), etriking him off the was impeached by the bill as a fraude was mad til fratilde. tr Busa ctora whana Harka to recovered debt oth 1141 og pon behalf of one Wilmot: about he


said that it is part of the duty of a solicitor to advise his client as to the 1887, Park paid the £8


hority, and Reserved in 1 B. and T. s lordship's 1y-the one he mouth of

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

by the county court, in which an action had been brought to recover the of marriage. The defendant denied that he had ever promised, and in amount. Park now made an affidavit stating that he did not receive the the alternative alleged that if he did so promise he was an infant at the £8 till April 30, that he was temporarily indebted to his bankers when he time. The plaintiff proved courtship by the defendant, and in October, 1883, sent the cheque for £8 to Mr. Walker, and hence his request to have the defendant being stilī underage, an offer of marriage from him, and an engage cheque held over. He also said that Mr. Walker threatened that he would ment between them. The defendant came of age on November 27, 1885. apply for a warrant for his apprehension, which greatly surprised and The understanding come to in October, 1883, was continued ; affectionate annoyed him as he had been Mr. Walker's friend for twelve years. He letters passed between them; and from time to time the defendant made had never attempted to conceal that he had received the money, and he the plaintiff small presents in money. The parties visited each other, regretted that he had not answered the communications addressed to him. spent holiday trips together, and generally conducted themselves as an He also stated, as an excuse for not appearing in the Divisional Court, engaged couple, although nothing definite was ever said about marriage, that on February 2, 1887, he called at the office of the Law Society, and Finally, in December, 1886, the defendant broke off the engagement The was informed that the motion would not come on for about six weeks. plaintiff's married sister swore that the defendant, after coming of age, He instructed a solicitor on March 14, but he was surprised to find that on asked her children in her presence to call him Uncle Joe. Counsel for the that day the motion was heard.

defendant submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, and in sup-
Lord ESHER, M.R., said that, if the court had thought that the judges port of his contention quoted section 2 of the Infants Relief Act, 1874,
of the Divisional Court had acted solely on the full and complete facts of and Coxhead v. Mullis (30. P. D. 439). He also argued that there was no
the case, and after hearing comments on the evidence on behalf of the material evidence supporting the plaintiff's allegation sufficient to meet
solicitor, it would be next to impossible to interfere with their decision. But the requirements of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, s. 2, the evidence of the plain-
the judges acted largely on the view that the solicitor, by not appearing' tiff's sister being at best only evidence of corroboration of ratification.
was utterly careless of his own character and utterly untouched by the DAY, J., said there was a case for the jury to determine. Although he
gravity of what he had done. The case, therefore, stood upon a very was bound by the case of Coxhead v. Mullis, he was inclined to think
different footing now from what it did then, and matters had been pointed that that case was wrongly decided. He was of opinion that the Infants
out here which could not have been pointed out to the court beləw as the Relief Act, 1874, did not apply to promises of marriage at all, and even if
case then stood. If those judges were now in London this court would the Act did apply, he considered the conduct of the defendant subsequent
consult them or send the case to them for consideration. This being a to his attaining majority was sufficient evidence of a fresh promise. He
question of punishment, if there were two possible constructions to be entirely approved of the reasoning contained in the judgments of Lind-
placed on the facts, the court would take the most merciful view. There- ley and Denman, JJ, in Ditcham v. Worrall (5 C. P. D. 410), and would
fore, when the solicitor received the money the court might adopt the not hesitate to tell the jury that they were entitled to infer a fresh
view that he had no intention of appropriating it, but, perhaps, under a promise from the defendant's conduct since he came of age, and that
sudden temptation, he subsequently spent the money. He never denied there was also sufficient material corroborative evidence to satisfy the
that he had received it. He gave a cheque upon a bank at which he must statute. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. An application
bave had an account, and there was no evidence that he gave a cheque by Mr. Mackenzie for a stay of execution pending an appeal was
which he knew would never be honoured. It was not as if he had given refused.-COUNSEL, Addison, Q.C., and C. P. MoKeand; Ambrose, Q C., and
a cheque upon a bank at which he had no account. The solicitor sbewed W. Mackenzie. SOLICITORS, Fluz & Leadbitter, for Watson, Oldham; Neish
a recklessness and carelessness and an impropriety of feeling in not f Howell, for Nuttall & Sons, Manchester.
answering the applications and in not appearing in the Divisional Court,
and his conduct all through shewed that he did not appreciate the duty
of honour which the court and the profession required of a solicitor.
But the sentence passed upon him was the highest possible in the case of
the grossest fraud. It being now shewn that there was no original fraud

in the matter, and this young man having up to the present conducted his
business with propriety, the court would not strike him out of the profes-

sion for ever, but would, under the circumstances now before the court, A general meeting of the society was held at the Society's Hall, Chan-
suspend his certificate for three years, to date from March 14 last, thé cery-lane, on Friday, the 29th of April, the chair being taken by Mr.
solicitor to pay all the costs. Fry, L.J., said that no fault could be found HENRY Watson PARKER, the president.
with the sentence passed by the Divisional Court. But at the eleventh
hour the solicitor came here with a lame explanation of his conduct. His

MR. FORD AND THE COUNCIL. lordship was not sure that he approached the matter from the same point of The PRESIDENT said : Before we proceed to the business of the meeting view as the Master of the Rolls, as he hardly thought that the doctrine of it will be convenient to the meeting to know that Mr. Charles Ford has merciful consideration applicable in criminal cases ought to be applied in requested that his motions may stand over till July, the reason being that cases of this nature. But having regard to the fact that the circumstances he has brought an action against the society and the president and vicewere now different he would not disagree with the order proposed by the president and other members, the statement of claim being as follows: Master of the Rolls. Lopes, L.J., agreed with the reasons given by the * The plaintiff's claim is for a declaration that the permission granted, Master of the Rolls.-COUNSEL, H. D. Greene, Q,C., and Hextall ; F. W. Hollams.-Times.

or proposed to be granted, by the defendant society to a certain club

called the Law Society Club, or to the committee thereof, to elect as a BROWN ». THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CO.-Q. B. Div., the defendant society, and a resolution granting such permission passed

member or otherwise of the said club any person not being a member of 28th April Mr. Brown had made a claim upon the company for compensation to be confirmed at a meeting of the defendant society convened for the

at a meeting of the defendant society held on the 28th of January, 1887, for an injury to him, and the case bad been tried on the Welsh Circuit 29th of April, 1887, are ultrà vires, and an improper disposition of a part Circuit (Mr. David), who obtained a new trial. He then desired to have wishes it to be explained that he is moving for an injunction to restrain the same counsel retained for the second trial. His solicitor told him the resolution which we are now called upon to confirm, and that under that as Mr. David belonged to a different circuit--the Oxford-he would these circumstances he, being in court to-day, wishes his notices to be require a special fee to go to the Welsh Circuit, and to this the client withdrawn. Therefore these notices which are put in Mr. Ford's name assented. Mr. David was accordingly retained for the trial and paid a special fee of fifty guineas, and he obtained a verdict for the plain

are withdrawn.

The notices which were withdrawn were as follows:-"Mr. CHARLES Then came the taxation of costs, and as between party and party” the master, acting on the usual rule, disallowed Mr.

Ford will move: (1) This meeting, whilst recognizing the good intentions David's fee, because he was a third counsel, and because, also, special castle-on-Tyne for educational purposes, is of opinion that these and

of the council in the small grants recently made to Liverpool and New

Then came the taxation of costs as "between solicitor and client” and Brown now ob

similar grants should be larger in amount, and should be made without jected to pay the fee of fifty guineas, saying he was “surprised ” at such

the conditions hitherto imposed by the council; (2) that the interests of B fee, while his solicitor said he had assented to the retainer, though-as from which solicitors are at present excluded, should be thrown open to

solicitors and the public require that many public legal appointments, the fee, saying "it was only oath against oath,” and at the same time he

The master disallowed them ; (3) that the present practice of striking the names of solicitors off might, if he pleased, indict him for perjury if his statement was untrue. refused to allow Brown to be cross-examined, and said the solicitor thental fönhe reputation of the profession, and the council are instructed

to seek legislative sanction for leaving it optional to the society to en rammstances, was most extraordinary, and the reason given for it more appointed annual general meetings should be held in the evening.” ciema mis taxation, observing that the disallowance of the fee, under the appear; (a) that the interests of the society require that at least one of the extraordinary still – for as it was only oath against oath” it was more necessary that the client should be croes-examined.

THE LAW SOCIETY CLUB. Lord COLERIDGE, O.J., said the decision of the master could not be sup Mr. HERBERT LOWE called attention to an error in the printed report mouth fighting about, and the evidence on both sides must be fully heard. which was to be confirmed at the meeting to-day, was not printed in the worth the end witnesses heard on either side. Fifty guineas was a sum society. Price said that Mr. Day 5 motion with respect to the club, and A. L. SMITH, J., concurred. ---COUNSEL, Stroud ; H. T. AtkinsonTimes.

form in which it was passed. The election of an honorary member was to be WHITEHEAD v. HALL–Manchester Assizes, Day, J., 29th April.

subject to the approbation of a general meeting of the members voting at Breach or PROMISE OF MARRIAGE-PLEA OF INFANCE-CoxHead v.

a general meeting “ of the club.” The words “of the club' had been

omitted. MULLIS (3 C. P. D. 439) DOUBTED.

Mr. E. KIMBER asserted that the motion was not correctly entered on E. Wobrought an action against J, H, for alleged breach of promise the minutes.

[ocr errors]

tiff for £750.


tice was to read the minutes at the following general meeting, and to read he should notify “day by day," what he had done under each

After some discussion

EXECUTION OF WRITS. Mr. Lowe moved that the minutes be amended by inserting the words

Mr. R. S. FRASBR (London) said he had given notice to call attention to " of the club.

the paper read by Mr. F. K. Munton at the provincial meeting of the The PRESIDENT : There are certain rules of the club which cannot be society held at Hull in October, 1882, dealing with the unsatisfactory varied except by resolution passed at a general meeting of this society manner in which the work of sheriffs' officers is performed, and to the and afterwards confirmed. As I understand, the notice of motion is to

resolutions passed thereon at such meeting, and that he would move :confirm the resolution altering one of these club rules which was passed at “(1) That in the opinion of this society the supervision exercised by the last meeting confirming the alteration which the club proposes to under-sheriffs over the officers appointed by them is inadequate for the make in their rules.

protection of the interests of either creditor or debtor, and admits of Mr. Lowe contended that the minutes were not properly entered. grave abuses ; (2) that the duties of sheriffs' officers should be entrusted

The PRESIDENT said that he should have allowed the motion to proceed, to men only of proved integrity, and that no person should hold the but Mr. Day, in whose name it stood, was not present.

appointment who has not been previously approved by the High Court; Mr. PHILLIMORE asserted that at the last meeting Mr. Gregory had (3) that, to secure efficiency in the carrying out of the duties imposed on moved the insertion of the words “ of the club,” which had been duly sheriffs' officers, such officers should be subject to the superintendence of seconded, and it was carried.

a resident inspector in each town or district; (4) that the remuneration

of inspectors and sheriffs' officers should be by salary only ; (5) that all Mr. PENNINGTON said there was nothing in the technical point. The circular said that the rule was to be added to the rules of the club, and, of the district ; (6) that all writs of execution should be available

auctioneers engaged in sheriffs' sales should be appointed by the inspector of course, a general meeting of the club would be understood.

throughout England, and be acted on without supplementary warrant; Mr. PHILLIMORE said that in the Solicitors' JOURNAL of the 5th of (7) that writs of execution should be marked with the day and hour of February the words “of the club” appeared in the resolution, and he issuing, and take priority accordingly; (8) that the fees and charges on contended that it was correctly reported.

executions should be altogether revised, and should be fixed by a scale to Mr. PENNINGTON asked that the motion might be allowed to stand over be approved by the Lord Chancellor, and a note thereof should be handed until Mr. C. O. Humphreys, who had promised to move it in the absence to the execution debtor on the occasion of every levy ; (9) that the of Mr. Day, was present.

sheriffs' fees and charges in each case should be taxed by the inspector, This was agreed to, and at a subsequent period of the meeting

subject to appeal; (10) that the levying of executions, now entrusted Mr. HUMPHREYS said he had been requested by Mr. Day, in accordance to the high bailiff of county courts, sbould be transferred to the office of with the notice given by him, to move the confirmation in pursuance of the inspector of the town or district in each case ; (11) that gentlemen the Club Rules No. 41) of the following regulation passed at the special now filling the office of under-sheriff should have the right of electiog to general meeting of the society held on the 28th of January, 1887:-"That serve the office of inspector in any one town or district forming part of the the following be added to the existing rules of the Law Society Club: county for which they now act as under-sheriff, and that due compensa. The committee, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these rules, tion should be made to them for being compulsorily deprived of the shall have power, subject to the approbation of a majority of the members emoluments now arising from their office for the rest of the county; (12) voting at a general meeting specially called for the purpose, to elect as that a copy of these resolutions should be forwarded to the Lord Chanhonorary member any person not being a member of the Incorporated cellor, the Attorney-General, and the Rule Comunittee of her Majesty's Law Society, but that the number of such honorary members shall not at Judges." In moving the resolutions he referred at considerable length to any time exceed twenty, and that such election shall be for a period not Mr. Munton's paper, which had resulted in the Hull meeting adopting exceeding two years, with power of re-election," and he would move the following suggestions contained therein, that they might be taken accordingly. He did not think it necessary to make any remarks upon

into consideration by the council, with a view to their suggesting legisthe subject beyond this, that a similar resolution had been carried at a lative action :-“(1) That the execution of final civil process should be general meeting last year, but that, in consequence of its not baving been removed from the office of sheriff ; (2) that an execution department brought up for confirmation through some error, it not being understood should be established in the Supreme Court, controlled by an official easily that it was necessary to be brought on for confirmation, the resolution accessible ; (3) that all writs of execution should be available throughout had lapsed.

England, and be acted on without supplementary warrant; (4) that Mr. F. K. MUNTON seconded the motion.

bailiffs should be appointed by the court, under proper regulations and Mr. KIMBER rose to order. He referred to the report which had ap- supervision, and be answerable direct on application to the execution peared in the SOLICITORS' Journal, and in that the words of the club department by any person alleging himself to be aggrieved; (5) that writs appeared in the resolution. The resolution, as it now stood on the of execution should be marked with the day and hour of issuing, and take agenda paper, was not in that form, as he asserted it should be. It was of priority accordingly, the writ being despatched by the execution departimportance that the minutes should be correctly entered. The members ment straight to the bailiff in rotation ; (6) that, unless otherwise directed of the society numbered upwards of 4,000, and they only had notice of in writing by the creditor's solicitor, all proceeds of execution should be what was to take place from the circular. They might'very reasonably at once paid into court; (7) that the costs and fees on executions should imagine that the words “ of the club" should come in after the words be altogether revised ; (8) that all business in relation to executions and "general meeting,” because it was a notice of motion sent out by the interpleader should be transferred to the execution department, with society.

provisions for the speedy intervention of the judge.” Mr Munton's paper The PRESIDENT said that the minutes of the last meeting confirmed the had disclosed the fact that a very objectionable state of affairs existed. resolution as it appeared upon the paper.

The council, in accordance with the recommendations of the meeting, took Mr. KIMBER: Then I do not hesitate to say that the minute is wrong.

the latter into consideration, but they came to the conclusion that the The PRESIDENT: I have already decided that I should put the motion.

time had not yet arrived for dealing with the subject in the way in which

alone it could be satisfactorily dealt with--that was to say, by the inter, Mr. MacArthur said he had handed in a protest at the last meeting terence of the Legislature. The question had alrealy attracted a good against the resolution, on the ground that it was contrary to the rules of deal of attention ontside of this body; and it was a question which had the society. In July, 1884, the society had added to their rules certain been taken up in Parliament and which was being pressed through. He the society. One of those rules was that the club should be confined to Bill into the House of Lords dealing with this important subject. In members of the society, and that any member of the club who should, bringing forward his resolutions he did not wish in any way to from an

cause, cease to be a member of the society, should ipso facto the present body of under-sheriffs-gentlemen for whom he felt sure cease to be a member of the club. So much importance was placed upon everyone in that hall must feel the highest possible respect. Therefore the matter by the members of the society who had made that bye-law the resolutions he proposed to move had not any reference to them in any addition or modification of any rule or regulation should become binding the notice of the meeting, was to ask them to carefully consider the unless and until approved by the council, and that no alteration should be question on its merits, in order that those who had promised to take it up made in the regulations except in pursuance of a resolution passed by a general meeting of the society and confirmed at a subsequent general He wished it to be most distinctly understood that the matter would not meeting held at an interval of not more than six calendar months. This should be confined to members of the society, and as sought to be altered by shewn that the altered circumstances such as the growth of population.

He had traced the history of the subject down to the present day, and had the present resolution, it proposed to permit those who were not members and 80 on-called for some alteration in the method of procedure. Referi a direct alteration of a bye-law. If they referred to the bye-laws they said that bailifts were manclaspor men varying from a decently respectable of the society to become members of the club. It therefore proposed ning to the class of men appointed as sheriffs' officers, Mr. Muntonshire would find that no such direct alteration could be made excepte upox auctioneer down to an impecunious person who would stand at nothing.ted twenty-one days' notice. No such notice had been given. He had protested against it at the last meeting for that reason, and had handed a duties which could alone be satisfactorily carried out by the under-sheriffs proposed at the last meeting, because the proper ustice of an alteration appointed by Sheriffs, on account only of their adroitness and dexterityprins of a bye-law had not been given, and it was therefore equally improper to hunting and seizing their prey" -rather a harsh definition, but det for bring it forward at this meeting for confirmation. The PRESIDENT, before putting the motion, directed the attention of nowadays few sheriffs' officers

complimentary in sense some of them would not indorse, for Mr. Kimber to the bye-laws of the society, under which it was not in fact, as a body, they were mere machines. which was adopted by thirty-four votes to seventeen,

sive or improper charges. It would be interesting to know whether any



either adroit or dexterous ;

It was understood

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »