Page images
PDF
[ocr errors]

m

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mall 7, I887. THE SOLICITORS’

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

judgment as to the principles _which should regulate the adjustment of l 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. o
It appeared that the late Lord Dudley was tenant for life of the family h

bserved." The testator gave his residuary real and personal estate to is 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 u on the estates the minin lant was valued at i “

ay the residue of such moneys unto the vicar and churchwardens

Y P I R D

some £167,000, and at his death the value exceeded £700,000, the increase foil") 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 ior the tower, own means. according to the discretion of my said trustee.” The chief clerk found

OHITTY, J., after holding that the interest of the lute earl under the that there were two churches at Bridlington—St. Mary's Priory Church will which constituted the settlement was s. right of enjoyment in the and Christ Church—with separate vicsrs and churchwardens; 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 perteusnt 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, ifso, the charitable, if such machinery was capable of being removed therefrom by whole £200 could be paid out of the im ure personalty.

disturbing the soil without destroyingl the land, was machinery which

N earn, J ., held that the gift was void] so far as related to the choir fund,

could not be said to be so attached to t e 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
which passed to the executor as personalty ( Wu/es v. Hall, 31 W. R. 585, Of

was certainly as much within the purposes of that Act as the providing

[ocr errors]

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

a belfry and bells, which had been held to be _within the Act. His
Ra THE TUNNEL MINING CO.—North, J ., 29th April.

[ocr errors]

opposed to the view taken. He, however, was of opinion that they were

so many large machines for smelting iron, and, as they were capable of Th

being removed without any material destruction of the land he held ‘hat

as trade fixtures the as ed to the e t . Heto k th ~' Yvhi - -
with regard to calciginlg inns, to fixexélcsoixzr engim; an’; 83268113,‘: 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 8;;

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

e question in this case was whether certain shares in the company, ch had been issued as fully paid up, were, in the winding up of the

und that no contract for their issue as fully paid-up shares had been
istered as required by section 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, “ at or
ore the issue" of the shares. P. sold some mining property to the

mpany in consideration of £500 cash and 1,000 £1 paid-up shares. Ho
ten ed a meeting of the directors on April 18 1886 at which an agree-
n

d ' I I Y
t for the issue to him of 1,000 fully paid-up shares. numbered 9,001 to
000, was signed and sealed. The agreement was handed over to him,
t he might file it with the Registrar of Joint-stock Companies, and a cer-

- . a
§:ce' Howeverhe thought that the mu measure of value wuuld be u mean t'ficate of the shares was also handed to him. P. went to his solicitor. who

[ocr errors]

vised him that the contract ought to have been filed before the shares
re issued. It was then too late in the afternoon to get it filed, and he

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

contributories as the holder of 1,000 unpaid shares, lie moved to have his
name removed. _
Nonrri, J., held that the shares must be treated as paid up. The word

[ocr errors]

registrar was to be present and file the contract when the shares were

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

or person in a fiduciary capacity, and that the money which he is ordered
to pay is a “sum in his possession or under his control,’ or whether
those matters may be proved aliunde. By the Judgment, dated the 28th of
February, 1887, the defendant was ordered on o_r _befor_e the 13th of
March, 1887, to pay £500 and interest to the plaintiffs Sidney Brewster
and Richard Brewster, as trustees of a certain settlement. The order_did
not state that the defendant was a trustee or person acting In a_ fiduciary
capacity, or that he had the money in his possession or under his control.
The defendant made default in payment, and _the plaintiffs 110W Ilwved
for leave to issue a writ of attachment against him. p C _ _
May 3.—S'rmi.i1\'o, J ., said that the cases of zlliddlsnm v. h/nclmtn
(19 W. R. 309, 6 cu. 152) and Fgraywm v- Fwum (10 ~11- 661)
shewed that in order to entitle the plaintiffs to a writ of attachment giro
defendant must be a trustee, and must have the money in ques ion inh is
possession or under his control. It might be a good rule of practice thug
no judgment or order should be enforced by afltfl-vhmfillt "F1995 ht 5
appeared upon the face of it. According to the presengjlprao lg, h°W-
ever, the person who had obtained_ the order was at 81$‘! f tfflizt,
otherwise than from the order, t_hn.t it was grounded 119911 1 Bic His
the trustee had the money in his possession or under his con ro d
lordship had consulted the judge befpre whom the action was tale , 8:‘
had been informed by him that the Judgment was (lllsllgga smcgeé
clusion of fact that the defendant had the £500 in_ his 111-nld That con-
appropriated for the particular-_ purpose for which 1ttV_VB5 eblif in View of
eluded the matter, and the writ of attachment mm; isfilég and defendant
an arrangement suggested as possible between the p am C d Ida M” 1
it would be kept back for aweek.—CovN$BL. 17_'"_""!7~'i Q" "I an ' ' '

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

CITORS’ JOURNAL. Ma 1, 188

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

A question arose in this case as to the production by trustees of certain documents for which they olaimegaprivilege. A testator, who died in 184.3, devised and bequeathed all his r and personal estate to three trustees, P., R., and T., upon trust for sale and conversion, and to hold the proceeds of sale upon the trusts therein declared ; and he appointed the same three persons executors. P. was one of the beneficiaries under the will; T. was a. solicitor. In January, 1854, the trustees entered into an agreement for the sale of a farm, which formed part of the testator’s real estate, to W. for £1,620. W. was also to take the stock on the farm at a valuation. On the 24th of March, 1854, the three trustees executed a cons eysnce of the farm to W., who at the same time paid them £1,814, which was made up of the purchase-money, interest thereon, and the amount of the valuation of the stock. In June, 1854, W. conveyed the farm to for £1,831. In 1874 R. sold the farm at a large profit. This action brought by the representatives of P. (who had died in 1871) against the executors of R. (who had died in 1886) and T. The statement of claim alleged that in the matter of the agreement for sale to him W. was a trustee for R., and was ‘put forward by R. as the purchaser, for the purpose of concealing from . and the other persons interested in the testator’s estate that R. was the real purchaser, and in consequence of his having been advised that lie, being s trustee of the will, could not purchase the property. It was further alleged that T. acted as solicitor for himself and his co-trustees and executors in the conversion and winding up of the testator's estate (according to the direction of the testator contained in the 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 belief that W. was a bomifide purchaser of the property, and that R. and T. were acting independently in the interests of the persons interested in the testator’s estate, and in ignorance of the fact that R. was the real purchaser of the property. The plaintifis claimed a declaration that, in the matter of the contract of January, 1854, and the conveyance of the 24th of March, 1854, W. acted as and was trustee for R.; that the contract and conveyance were not binding on the persons hen eficislly interested under 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 beneficiaries the profits realized by R. by the enjoyment and resale of the property purchased by him, and that the defendants might be ord ed

R. was

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

meaus of evading the law." Those cases were both of high authority, and they had both been approved by the Court for Crown Gases Reserved in Reg. v. Con: (14'Q,. B. D. 153, 33 W. R. 396). Secondly, both R. and T. were acting together in relation to the trust estate. In his lordship’s opinion it was not open to trustees to act together in such a wa.y—the one acting as the professional adviserof the other-as to close the mouth of either as to matters relevant to the trust. If they did so they must take the consequence of their communications not being treated as privileged. Suppose one of the verfilis qua truatmt had assigned his interest, and notice of the assignment had been given only to R., and that T. had been, when he was acting as R.'s solicitor, informed by him of the assignment; could he decline to answer whether he had received notice of the assignment on the ground that he was acting as R.’s solicitor? In his lordship’s opinion he could not. Tho notice would be to him as trustee, and he would be bound to disclose it. If trustees were acting together, not fraudulently, but unfairly, to their mtuis que truatmt, it would be a novel rule to say that they were entitled to retain in their own bosoms what had occurred, because one of them had been acting as solicitor for the other. Thirdly,in the presentcase, accepting the statements of the executors in their defence, R. and T. in what they did before the sale to W. were acting as co-vendors to him, and, if so, what ground was there for saying that there was any relation of solicitor and client between them which entitled their communications to any professional privilege! The executors‘ own statements put them out of court. His lordship had, moreover, with the assent of the parties, looked at the documents in question, and from his inspection of them he was clearly of opinion that they ought to be produced. The executors would be at liberty to seal up any parts which were irrelevantto the matters in issue, and a week would be allowed them to consider whether they would appeal.-Oovssen, Oookson, Q.G., and A. A. Terrell; Cozms-Hm'd_r/,Q.C., an Rowdm. SOLICITORS, Thos. Edwardi; Randall 5' Buclmifl.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

In this case a novel point was raised as to a solicii_or’s lien for costs. At the trial of the action Stirling, J ., dismissed it, costs to be paid by the plaintifi to the defendant. On appeal the decision was rsvqrflfld. and the Court of Appeal ordered the defendant to pay to the plainilfi 1119 costs of the appeal. and also to repay to the plaintifi the costs which he had paid to the defendant in pursuance of the order of _Stirl1ng. -7- The costs to be thus repaid amounted to £298. The plaintiff had become

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

might admit assets of R. suflicient to satisf what sh ld h f d

. o e n due f h l Utfi and that the from his estate, or that his estate might be adininistereduby the czlirt T of the appeato the apphcanm Instead O to t 6 P am

9 ' ' ' ‘ t f A l b ri insl wnaccount gar and pay the same accordingly; that the executors MIR‘ bankrupt, and his solicitors applied _to the Cour o ppea Y ll iii

executors of R., by their defence, denied the allegations of the plaint and said that W. was a perfectly bond fide independent purchaser of property at the full value and for his own benefit alone, without any tru agency, or understanding in favour of R., and that the terms of the s were not settled by R. and T., except in the proper and ordinary way

co vendors of /the property with P , and that R and T acted throu hb

independently in the interest of the persons interested in the estate. g T executors made an aflidavit of documents in their ' b '

he applicants might be declared entitled to a lien on the £298 in respefii 05

-thsi the difference between the plaintiffs’ costs of the appeal as between port)’

° and party, and his costs as between solicitor and client. This difieralcfi 5;’ was alleged to amount to £159. It was urged that the £298 had 8

9' e “recovered” for the plaintiff through the exertions of his solicitors bi

‘*5 means of the appeal, and that the solicitors were entitled to a lien upoiag “t for the costs of the appeal either at common law or at any rate "11

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

August, 18_42, to September, 185:1, the other from April to June, 185 enchof which was described as paid by R. to T. for business transacted

he section 28 of the SolicitorsA0_t,_1B60. The official receiver in the bank4 5 Tan Oovar (COTTON, LINDLEY, and Bowen, LJJ.) held that the solicitors 5 . .

ii solicitor for R. (and not for the trustees) between the dates mentioned. The executors objected to produce the letters on the ground that th were professional communications of a confidential character between

q-"<1 T-. In which T. acted professionally for R., and as his private solicito and not as the solicitor of the trustees, a dth t ' ' r

n a such communications we charged against and paid for by R. personally out of his own moneys, an were made with the object of enabling T. to give R. (as a private in dividual and not_ as a trustee of the testafor's will) legal advice and assist ance ; and that in such communications T. acted as such private solicito of R., and iii no other capacity. And the executors objected to roduc

. . P the hills of costs on_the ground that they were prepared by T. in hi o

private capacity, acting professionally for R. as a private individual f aiid at the oxpe_nse_of ., and of no_othor person, and contained profes sioiialcommunications of a confidential character between R. and T. T plaintiffs took oit ‘

[ocr errors]

were entitled to the lien, and ordered that the extra costs (tobe°i*"1*:°;ii as between solicitor and client) should be paid to the solicitors

£3’ the £298; that out of the residue of that sum the costs of the Preset“

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ED Re ALFRED PARK, A SOLICITOR, Ea: part: THE INOOBPOBLT LAW SOCIETY-C. A. N0. 1, 4th MW

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

Ma)’ 1, I337. THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL 445

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

by the county court in which an action had bee

. , _ _ n 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

£8 till April 30, that he was temporarily indebted to his bankers when h
sent the cheque for £8 to Mr. _VValker_ and hence his request to have th

cheque held over. He also said that Mr. Walker threatened that he would me

the alternative alleged that if he did so promise he was an infant at the

e time. The plaintiff proved courtship by the defendant, and in October, 1883,

e defendantbeingstill underage. an offer of marriage from him, and an engage b

_ _ _ nt etween 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 th

regretted that he had not answered the communications addressedlto him
He also stated, as an excuse for not a earin i

e plaintiff small presents in money. The parties visited each other, spent holiday trips together, and generally conducted themselves as an

pp g n the Divisional Court: engaged couple, although nothing definite was ever said about marriage that on February 2, 1887, he called at the oflice of the Law Society, and ,

wasinformed that the motion would not come on for about six‘ weeks

Finally. in December, 1886, the defendant broke off the engagement The;

. plaintiffs 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 heBrd- defendant submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, and in sup

Lord Esmzii, lll.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 an

the csse,_ and after hearing comments on the evidence on behalf of the ma

d (Jozbead v. Uullis (3 C. P. D. 439). He also argued that there was nd

terial evidence supporting the plaintiff's allegation sufllcient to meet solicitor, it would be next to impossible to interfere with their decision B t the '

_ _ ii requirements of 32 8: 33 Vict. c. 68, s. 2, the evidence of the plain-
the judges acted largely o_n 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 Dar, J., said there was a case for the jury to determine. Although he

[blocks in formation]

g s ewe 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 111t_he matter, and this young man having up to the present conducted his business with propriety, the court would not strike him out of the profession for ever, but would, under the circumstances now before the court, flflspeud his certificate for three years, to date from March 14 last th

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

was bound by the case of Carrhead v. Jllulhs, he was inclined to think
that that case was wrongly decided. He was of opinion that the Infants
Relief Act, 1874, did not apply to promises of marriage at all, and even if
the Act did apply, he considered the conduct of the defendant subsequent
to his attaining majority was sufl-lcient evidence of a fresh promise. He
entirely approved of the reasoning contained in the judgments of Lind-
ley and Denman, JJ, in Dili-ham v. Worrall (5 O. P. D. 410), and would
i not hesitate to tell the jury that they were entitled to inferafresh
promise from the defendant’s conduct since he came of age, and that
there was also suflicient material corroborative evidence to satisfy the
statute. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. An application
by Mr. Mackenzie for a stay of execution pending an appeal was
refused.——CouNsi:r., Addison, Q.C., and 0'. I’. MvKsand; Ambrose, Q C.. and
W. lilac/l-mzie. Soucirons, Flue. it Leadbittar, for Watson, Oldham; Nsisli
Q Howell, for Nuttall g Sims, Manchester.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]

Ma. Foan AND run COUNCIL.

The Pnasrmzsr said : Before we proceed to the business of the meeting
it will be convenientto the meeting to know that Mr. Charles Ford has
requested that his motions may stand over till July, the reason being that
he has brought an action against the society and the president and vice-
president and other members, the statement of claim being as follows :-
“ The plaintiffs claim is for a declaration that the permission granted,

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
member or otherwise of the said club any person not being a member of
the defendant society, and a resolution granting such permission passed
at a meeting of the defendant society held on the 28th of January, 1887,

to be confirmed at a meeting of the defendant society convened for the

29th of April, 1887, are ulmi vim, and an improp_er_ disposition of a part
of the defendant society’s property, and for an injunction.’ Mr. Ford
wishes it to be explained that he is moving for an injunction to restrain

[graphic]

that 9 counsel retained for the second trial. His solicitor told him
8-! Mr. David belonged toadifferent cir 't th O f

the resolution which we are now called upon to confirm, and that under

require E special fee to to th cm _ e X °rd—h° would these circumstances he, being in court to-day, wishes his notices to be

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

opay the tee of fifty gnineas _ h H ,, the conditions hitherto imposed by the council; (2) that the interests of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

r _ _ . . , . _ hem ; (3) that the present practice of striking the names of solicitors off mused to an?) 1Bwas only oath against oath," and at t_lie same time he the

rolls involves the society in much unnecessary expense, and is detri

mental to the reputation of the profession; and the council are instructed

0 seek legislative sanction for leav_ing_ it optional to the society to

make such applications by summons in judges chambers, with right of
ppeal; (-1) that the interests of the society require that at least one of the
P

pointed annual general meetings should be held in the evening."

[ocr errors]

which was to be confirmed at the meeting to-day, was not printed in the

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

shtanaction against J. H. for alleged breach of promise the minutes

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

After some discussion _ _

Mr. Lows moved that the minutes be amended by msertmg the words “ of the club."

The Piinsinsn-r: There are certain rules of the club which cannot_ be varied except by resolution passed at a general meeting of this society and afterwards confirmed. As I understand, the notice_of motion is to confirm the resolution altering one of these club rules which was passed at the last meeting confirming the alteration which the club proposes to make in their rules.

Mr. Lows contended that the minutes were not properly entered.

'l'he Passinnivr said that he should have allowed the motion to proceed, but Mr. Day, in whose name it stood, was not present.

Mr. Pninniiioas asserted that at the last meeting Mr. Gregory had moved the insertion of the words “ of the club," which had been duly seconded, and it was carried.

Mr. PBNHXNGTON 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 course, a general meeting of the club would be understood.

Mr. PHILLIMOBB said that in the Soi.iciroas' Jouii..\'Ai. of the 5th of February the words “ of the club” appeared in the resolution, and he contended that it was correctly reported.

Mr. Psnsmoron asked that the motion rnightbe allowed to stand over until Mr. G. O. Humphreys, who had promised to move it in the absence of Mr. Day, was (present.

This was agree to, and at a subsequent period of the meeting

Mr. Hosiruasrs said he had been requested by Mr. Day, in accordance with the notice given by him, to move the confirmation (in pursuance of the Club Rules 0. 41) of the following regulation passed at the special general meeting of the society held on the 28th of January, 1887 :—“ That the following be added to the existing rules of the Law Society Club: The committee, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these rules, shall have power, subject to the approbation of a majority of the members voting at a general meeting specially called for the purpose, to elect as honorary member any person not being a member of the Incorporated Law Society, but that the number of such honorary members shall not at any time exceed twenty, and that such election shall be for a period not exceeding two years, with power of re-election," and he would move accordingly. He did not think it necessary to make any remarks upon the subject beyond this, that a similar resolution had been carried at a general meeting last year, but that, in consequence of its not having been brought up for confirmation through some error. it not being understood that it was necessary to be brought on for confirmation, the resolution had lapsed

Mr. F. K. MUNTON seconded the motion.

Mr. Kmssa rose to order. He referred to the report which had appeared in the Soi.ici'roiis' Jocusan, and in that the words “ of the club " appeared in the resolution. The resolution, as it now stood on the agenda paper, was not in that form, as he asserted it should be. It was of importance that the minutes should he correctly entered. The members of the society numbered upwards of 4,000, and they only had notice of what was to take place from the circular. They might very reasonably imagine that the words “ of the club " should come in after the words “general meeting," because it was a notice of motion sent out by the society.

The PRESIDENT said that the minutes of the last meeting confirmed the resolution as it appeared upon the paper.

Mr. Kiiiaim: Then I do not hesitate to say that the minute is wrong.

The PRESIDENT : I have already decided that I should put the motion.

Mr. liiacaivrnuii said he had handed in a protest at the last meeting against the resolution, on the ground that it was contrary to the rules of the society. In July, 1884, the society had added to their rules certain rules under which they permitted the club to be held in the premises of the society. One of those rules was that the club should be confined to members of the society, and that any member of the club who should from any cause, cease to be a member of the society, should ipsn fact; cease to be a member of the club. So much importance was placed upon the matter by the members of the society who had made that bye-law uponvthat particular rule. that in another rule it was ordered that no addition or modification of any rule or regulation should become binding unless and until approved by the council, and that no alteration should be made in the regulations except in pursuance of a resolution passed by a general meeting of the society and confirmed at a subsequent general meeting held at an interval of not more than six calendar months. This rule had been made by the society as one of its bye-laws, that the club should be confined to members of the society, and as sought to be altered by the present reso.ution, it proposed to permit those who were not members

of the society to become members of the club. It therefore proposed a direct alteration of a bye-law. If they referred to tho bye-laws they would find th t

a no _such direct alteration could be made except upon twenty-one days’ notice. No such notice had been given. He had protesfééd against it at the last meeting for that reason, and had handed a wri ton protest to the president. This resolution ought not to have been proposed at the last meeting, because the proper notice of an alteration of_a b_ye—law had not_beeu given, and it was therefore equally improper to bring it forward at this meeting for confirmation.

M;_rh%iP‘g‘§‘“€"T£hbef§'° Fmmg the motion, directed the attention of
. _ m er o e ye-_ aws of the society, under which ii-, was not
gequired jto cont??? the minutes at the next general meeting. The prim.
ice was o rea eminute tth f ll ' '
and confirm them at the nzzt uni 01 owing general meeting. and to read

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. R. S. Fiussa (London) said he had given notice to call attention to the paper read by Mr. F. K. Munton at the provincial meeting of the society held at Hull in October, 1882, dealing with the unsatisfactory manner in which the work of sheriffs’ oiiicers is performed, and to the resolutions passed thereon at such meeting, and that he would move :— “ (1) That in the opinion of this society the supervision exercised by under-sherlfis over the ofilcers appointed by them is inadequate for the protection of the interests of either creditor or debtor, and admits of grave abuses; (2) that the duties of sherifis' otficers should be entrusted to men only of proved integrity, and that no person should hold the appointment who has not been previously approved by the High Court ; (3) that, to secure eficiency in the carrying out of the duties imposed on sheriffs’ oillcers, such oficers should be subject to the superintendence of aresident inspector in each town or district; (4) that the remuneration of inspectors and sheriffs‘ officers should be by salary only; (5) that all auctioneers engaged in sherifis' sales should be appointed by the inspector of the district; (6) that all writs of execution should be available throughout England, and be acted on without supplementary warrant; (7) that writs of execution should be marked with the day and hour of issuing, and take priority accordingly; (8) that the fees and charges on executions should be altogether revised, and should be fixed by a scale to be approved by the Lord Chancellor, and a note thereof should be handed to the execution debtor on the occasion of every levy; (9) that the sheriffs’ fees and charges in each case should be taxed by the inspector, subject to appeal; (10) that the levying of executions, now entrusted to the high bailifi of county courts, should be transferred to the offlce of the inspector of the town or district in each case; (11) that gentlemen now filling the oifice of under-sheriff should have the right of e ectiug to serve the oflice of inspector in any one town or district forming part of the county for which they now act as under-sheriff, and that due _compensation should be made to them for being compulsorily dfiptflrll of the emoluments now arising from their ofiice for the rest of the county; (l2) that a copy of these resolutions should be forwarded to the Lord _Ghancellor, the Attorney-General, and the Rule Committee of her Ma]esty’s Judges." In moving the resolutions he referred at considerable length to Mr. Munton's paper, which had resulted in the Hull meeting adopting the following suggestions contained therein, that they might _be taken into consideration by the council, with a view to their suggesting legislative actlon:—“ (1) That the execution of final civil process should be removed from the ofllce of sheriff; (2) that an execution department should be established in the Supreme Court, controlled by an official easily accessible ; (3) that all writs of execution should be available throughout En land, and be acted on without supplementary warrant; _(4) lllflt bailiffs should be appointed by the court, under proper regulations and supervision, and be answerable direct on application to the execution department by any person alleging himself to be aggrieved; (5) that writs of execution should be marked with the day and hour of issuing, and is-lio priority accordingly, the writ being despatched by the execution department straight to the bailiff in rotation; (6) that, unless otherwise directed in writing by the creditor's solicitor, all proceeds of execution should bfl at onre paid'into court; ('7) that the costs and fees on executions should be altogether revised; (8) that all business in relation to executions and interpleader should be transferred to the execution department, Wllll provisions for the speedy intervention of the judge." Mr Muutofli P9?" had disclosed the fact that a very objectionable state of afiai1'B_ 6551595The council, in accordance with the recommendations of the IIIJ_B6l7lllK| Wk the matter into consideration, but they came to the conclusion that th: time had not yet arrived for dealing with the subject in the way in Yl1l° alone it could be satisfactorily dealt with-—that was to say, by the 1"l7°l" ference of the Legislature. The question had already attracted P 8°?! deal of attention outside of this body; and it was a question which hH been taken up in Parliament and which was being pressed throuflll-Md ° was very glad to be able to say that the Government had introdil I" Bill into the House of Lords dealing with this important 8l1l)]0¢t- 11 bringing forward his resolutions he did not wish in any way to reflects: the present body of under-sheriffs—gentlemen for whom he felt N; re everyone in that hall must feel the highest possible respoolt Th? ° the resolutions he proposed to move had not any reference to them in anti?) hostile spirit. But the object he had in view in brin81"B the ".“‘°°°’,,,e the notice of the meeting, was to ask them to carefully <>°1\‘51de~' tn question on its merits, in order that those who had promised to ville! W? in the House of Commons might be fortified with the benefit of thcirufiemé He wished it to be most distinctly understood that the_matter WP rest here. Mr. Munt/an had stated the facts very concisely 1" llPélilzi He had traced the history of the subject down to the present day» ‘*1; mu shewn that the altered circumstances—such as the growth of P°P“£em,: and so on—called for some alteration in the method of procedure. mu had ring to the class of men appointed as sheriffs’ ofiioolfii M1" Mutable said that bailifis were a class of men varying from a decentli 7951:? to auctioneer down to an impecunious person who would stand Bl? {1°Bdogted serve his own purpose. They were a class which had gradual! sheliim duties which could alone be satisfactorily carried out by theunder- “om themselves. Blackstone had defined bound bailiffs to be meaugruym appointed by sheriifs, on account only of their 8dI0li}D€88_B_1ld dsxt n was hunting and seizing their prey”-rather a harsh defin1t1on,_ d“ Be for complimentary in a sense some of them would v not 1Ild°1'mi'°us; nowadays few sherilfs’ ofliwrs were either adroit or etlmwod in fact, as a body, they were mere machinem IF W“ “n M mg that one of the usual conditions in a bailiffs seoullfi bonddwr eaoli he should notify “day by day," what he had done ill! 6 5

[graphic]

warrant, whether successful or not, and that he would never make en; ,sive or improper charges. It would be interesting to lfl1°Whm

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

sheriff's ofllcer in the kingdom returned “ day by day ” what his move- i
ments were. He would be glad to know of any instance of an under-

__ 44 7_

council thereon. Ha said that most of those present would agree that the method of levying executions at present in vogue was not satisfactory. But this was not the most suitable time for dealing with the question. They could not e expected to deal with a number of recommendations such as those

Mr. E. K. BLYTH (London) seconded the amendment, observing that it was not possible for the meeting to go through a mass of detail with an advantageous result. The mover of the resolutions had made out a case for reference to a committee for inquiry. The main points he had made were, first, that writs of execution ought not be required to be issued in separate counties all over the kingdom, for it was perfectly absurd that if a. writ came to one county and the goods were removed just over the border, one should have to go back to London and get another writ for the next county. The indirect methods by which a writ was issued to the high sheriff, who acted by the under-sheriif, who acted by the acting under-sheriff, who acted by the bailiff, was an absurdity which ought to be removed, and the person who had the final execution of the decrees of the court was the person who ought to be directly responsible to the court. A fair case had been made out for a committee to get rid of such absurdities as these which led to such curious actions as those they occasionally heard of in which the bailiff, at one and of a county, had played some tricks with a debtor, and an action was, in consequence, brought against a respectable baronet living at the other end of the county, who knew nothing of what had

[ocr errors]

Mr. W. P. W. PHXLLIMORB (London) spoke in favour of the amendment.
e thought that a little deliberation should be given to the matter

e suggestion that it might be better that it should be left to the
licitors and persons issuing out writs to nominate a person who should

Mr. LONGMORE (Hertford), on behalf of a considerable number of

k ' ~
Mr. hlusrou cordially agreed with Mr. Hanhart's proposition, and there

we sheriif voluntarily enforcing a bailiffs bond as regards excessive charges 155° (unless proceedings had arisen), the under-sheriff invariably leaving the b i ding unfortunate debtor to the mercy of chance. Mr. Munton had given a case proposed, however important they might be. n tn _ ' in which he had recovered damages for a client from a sheriff for having auiasg” been kept out of money, and put to expenses by being compelled to Ll compromise with his creditors by reason of his not being able to extract ,ti “T from the sheriff money which he had collected on behalf of the execution Adm,“ creditor. He (Mr. Fraser) would urge that the country practitioners had “MA much greater experience in these matters than London solicitors, and ‘h°1Mf the fact that the resolutions had been adopted unanimously at the Hull ‘Wm’ meeting was a strong argument in their favour. The Bill before Parlia“imi” ment very properly relieved the sherifis of a good many of their privileges, WW“ which were to a large extent of a purely ornamental character, and Wm“ further regulated the sheriffs‘ charges, but he would feel greater satis‘)lu““u faction if he knew that an abstract scale of charges had been fixed, which mil! scale should be submitted to the society for approval. The class from "ms which the present fees were levied was the most unsuitable from whom l'"ml' they could be required. When a man had an execution in his house he “dmd was not in s position to support the system. Owing to the large increase CMFW of population, it had become simply impossible for the under-sheriff mum situated in the chief town of a county to exercise proper supervision over him“ the work. He would not complain il’ he thought under-sheriffs taken place. This matter ought to be put on a fair basis, and such ‘l,flH' got the benefit, but he asserted that the under - sheri.ifs' officers things, like their respected friends John Doe and Richard Roe, should be llillml derived very large incomes from the performance of what were confined to the limbo of the past. With regard to the constitution of the lanai i more mechanical duties, and that if a poll were taken of the solicitors committee. he thought it desirable that one or two members of the council, lleillllllli throughout the country nine out of ten would condemn the present l such as M1-. Roscoe and Mr. Addison, should be placed upon it. The Kalli system. The remedy he proposed was to confine the under-sheriffs question should be thoroughly discussed, the law investigated, and such ildllli" to their work. Let them really do under-sheriffs’ work. Owing amendments aswere necessary would probably be recommended. There was Plmm to the great mass of work which had been thrown upon the under-sherifis fl B Bcifil 1688011 why this should be dmle '1°W» bemluse °f the Pending Bill 1"mP*“f they had been unable to give the matter proper attention, and_ they had, In 4 _ _ _ "ll "Hi therefore, allowed the class of sheriffs‘ officers to come into existence. A I68-ched the Othflr 1101186 10!‘ 1l1$!'°dl1¢1118 l'ef°"P'3 Wlt'|1°l1l9 1331571118 the lllllll )1 solicitor should be appointed in every important town or district as under- ma-tier to enothel‘ BeBBi011~ 1 sheriff or inspector, and he should employ s. man at a salary which should ll11",3l,' T <>0Il‘€Bp0I1d with the work he was called upon to do, as in the case of chief H _ , _ _ slew‘-1~ ' clerks of county courts. The present system was most improvideiit and which might result in some beneficial alterations. This was especially gliilfi unsatisfactory, and he believed it to be very detrimental to the profession the case with reference to the suggestion that the sheriff's ofilcer should ilrlllii tobave topny blackmail so n Q1333 of men employed by the profession, be permanent and paid by a fixed salary; an alteration which, in his ting 161' and who, but for the apathy of the profession, would not be able to stand (Mr. Phillimore's) opinion, would open the door to abuse—he meant the iliflllif another day. Solicitors sufiered severely every year by reason of the possibility of bribery on the part of the debtor. He would just throw out leillllfj iiou-execution of processes which they lodged with the sheriffs. If the th lia-11!‘-‘ ‘ Inspector were directly accessible the debtor could go directly to him. B0 _ _ _ ill.[Llll§!'£ Whenever an execution was levied there should be s, statement handed to levy, and who should be responsible to the High Court and be liable to ,.ll|il>‘ the execution debtor, and attached to it there should be a list of the have his costs taxed as in the case of a permanent ofllcer. liliwfllitborized fees which th'e sheriifs were entitled to charge, and a Mr. Fri-Assn said he would accept the amendment» eiiflm memorandum should be attached to the levy, stating that these charges _ _ _ lflillllgl would be taxed by the inspector at a certain date, and that if the debtor under-sheriffs who were present, said they had no desire to baulk inquiry, gllliu gave notice to the inspector he would have an opportunity of attending but they thought that they should be represented on the committee. H1. an W the taxation. He also urged the desirability of paying by salary instead would suggest that three members of the committee should be nominated on °ll1yfves, and that every execution should pay its own expenses. He the part or the under-sherifis. He thought it would be most unwise to ,,},,i.lll Referred in strong terms of condemnation to some of the sales which took ta e such ii leap in the dark as the resolutions proposed imi? l Place in London, than which nothing could be more objectionable. He _ W,-w l thought the under-sheriffs were the best persons to appoint bailiffs, but as no reason why the under-sheriffs should not be represented as suggested mi’?-, “1°Y_Bhoii1d livein the town where they had to act. He concluded by b

y Mr. Longmore. But he thought the three members nominated by the

moving the resolutions standing in his name

under-sherifis should be added to the twelve already suggested. This

[graphic]
[graphic]

Mr. E. Kiunsn (London) seconded the -resolutions, remarking, with would give fifteen as forming the committee, so that there would always

"gold to N 0. 3, that he did not know whether the society were aware of b

the circumstances under which the surveyors of taxes and collectors cf
31*?’ were *'*Ppointed, and of the Act of Parliament under which their ‘ is

e a majority on one side or the other.

Mr. C. GZPP (under-sherifi of Essex) said the under-sheriffs were very
nxioiis to be represented on the committee. Their interests ought to be

Muties were regulated ; but it had struck him very forcibly, when he heard consulted equally with those of the other members of the society. From

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. B. J . L. Fiiaaa (London) suggested the number of members Of the

bfi , county courts, &c., they had shpped out of the purview of the council should be five so as to make the committee consist of an odd

fickle and the profession, and he thought their duties should be brought nu

an . '° ‘he View of the public, in order that they might be kept perfectly

mber. _ I .
Mr. Faasan expressed himself in favour of a large committee rather

1 flight The Act of Parliament for collectors of taxes was modern, the than a small one. He did not think the under-sheriffs had any locus sirmdi
-1?: “Eula”-"8 the conduct of under-sheriffs and sheriffs’ oflicers was old. il-\ the matter-

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. MA\'NAED (London) objected to Mr. Fraser having the power to
minate three out of the twelve members of the committee He (Mr

O ld f 0.1 number of members of the council and

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