Page images
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors]
[merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

are not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors " th ‘

e court shall refuse to approve it. By sub-section 12, “ if, under or iii pursuance of a com osition o h ' ' ‘

p r so eme, a trustee is appointed to administer the debtor's property or manage his business, Part V. of this Act shall apply to the trustee as if he were a trustee in a bankruptcy, and as if the terms ‘bankruptcy,’ ‘bankrupt,’ and ‘order of adjudication,’ included respectively a composition or scheme of arrangement, a compounding or arranging debtor, and order approving the composition or scheme." And, by sub-section 13, “Part III. of this Act shall, so fur as the nature of the case and the terms of the composition or scheme ndmit, apply thereto, the same interpretation bring given to the words ' Irustee,’ ' bankruptcy,’ ‘banln-upt,’ and ‘order of adjudication,’ as in'the last preceding subsection." Part III. of the Act is headed “Administration of Property," and Part V. is beaded “Trustees in Bankruptcy." Section 168, which occurs in Part VIII. of the Act, provides that “ In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘trustee ' means the trustee in bankruptcy of a_debtor’s estate." Section 27, which occurs in Part I. of the Act, provides that "the court may, on the application of the oflicial receiver or trustee, at any time after s. receiving order has been made againsta debtor, summon before it the debtor or his wife, or any person known or suspected to have in his possession any of the estate or effects belon ' to

the debtor, or supposed to be indebted to the debtor, or any person whom
the court ma d b

I y eem capa le of giving information respecting the debtor,
his dealings or property, and the court may require such person to pro-
duce any documents in his custody or power relating to the debtor,
his dealings or property, . . . and may examine on oath, either by
poi-d of mouth or by written interrogatories, any person so brought before
it concerning the debtor, his dealings or property." In the present case
the scheme of arrangement. as embodied in the resolutions passed by the
creditors, provided, inter alia, as follows:—(l) That the property of the
debtor which would become divisible among his creditors if he had been
adjudged bankrupt should vest in a trustee to be appointed by the credi-
tors under the scheme, and that the trustee should administer the pro -
arty under the supervision of a committee of inspection, in the like
manner and with the like powers and duties, and subjectto the like
conditions in all respects, as though the debtor had been adjudged
bflnlrupt, and the lrustee bad been appointed trustee in the bankruptcy ;
(3) thfit. from the date of the approval of the scheme by the court, the
some should be accepted by the creditors in full satisfaction of all debts
due to them by the debtor from which an absolute discharge in bank-
ruptcy would release him, but that, notwithstanding such approval and
3¢¢6_Pf8nce, the debtor should give to the trustee such assistance in the
realisation and distribution of the propertyas the trustee might have
required of him had he been adjudged bankrupt and obtained his dis-
°hl\Yg0; (3) that the provisions of section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act,
1353. relating to the discovery of the property of a bankrupt, should, so
far as the same were applicable, apply to the proceedings under the
h@_mB; (4) that the trustee should receive such remuneration for his
lervless as the committee of inspection might determine. A trustee was
¥>P°lM9d, and also a committee of inspection, consisting of five persons.
he Oflieial Receiver reported to the court that the proposed scheme was
"°“°"“b1ei having regard to the difliculty and delay which would probably
Bltcnd the realization of the debtor's property, and to the provision:
'*"m"8 to section 27; but he added that, in view of the nature of the
assets, and the fact that the scheme did not vest in or confer upon the
t"“°t‘~f° ‘"1! Pfcpcrty J!‘ power beyond that which would vest in or be
exerciseable by a trustee in bankruptcy, he was unable to report that the
scheme was calculated to benefit the creditors to any greater extent than
ldmlnlstration in bankruptcy. Notwithstanding this report, and the
°PP0s1tl0n of a dissent-ient creditor, Mr. Registrar Giffard made an order
“PP1‘0vIng the scheme.

Tm: Oounr or Arrssi. (Lord Esiiiiu, M.R., and Far and Lorne, L.JJ.)
reversed the decision, holding that the scheme was not one which could be
“PProved under section 18. Lord Esina, M.R., said that the scheme
mall‘ shewed that, in order to enable justice to be done to everyone, the
creditors wanted all the powers conferred by the Act, and, if the scheme
"5 .“°“°“t1Y intended, as he assumed it was, it was intended to give the
gediturs all those powers. An attempt was made to give the creditors
th°!8_p0wers by agreement with the debtor, but they got nothing more

an if the matter went on in bankruptcy. But, in fact, the creditors did
;1°¢ 89B11 the powers conferred by the Act in the case of a bankruptcy,

or the provisions of section ‘Z7 could not be incorporated into a scheme by
€g"em9I1t- It_was decided in Ex parts Wliinney (17 Q. B. D. 233),
at “"3 Pfflvlsions of the section could not be enforced by the
;‘°l'1"t under a scheme of arrangement, because the trustee under B
tfioeme was not a trustee at whose instance the court could enforce
u his lprovisions. The scheme, therefore, gave the creditors less than
wNa‘€h'“Pt¢Y would. It was not one contemplated by the Act, and
and’ "@5018. not reasonable. It was not for the benefit of the creditors,
in 0131853 1101? to be approved by the court. Fur L.J. said that

be bog that a sgieme should be approved by th‘e cou'rt, it must

have had in a bankruptcy, though they desired to have the same powers as in a bankruptcy. It was neither reasonable nor calculated to benefit the general body of creditors. Loves, L.J., said that under this scheme the creditors sought to obtain the advantages of a bankruptcy without giving the court the power and control which it would have in a bankruptcy. This was not contemplated by the Act, and he thought that no scheme could be reasonable which was contrary to the policy of the Act. The Act did not contemplate that there should be these powers of discovery undera scheme. Nor was the scheme for the benefit of the creditors, for they clearly got nothing more by it thun they would get in a bankruptcy, and they probably got less. Covusnn, Cooper Willis, Q.G., and iVo0r{fuIl,' Harwell. Soniciroiis, Frrsllfia-Ids Q lVilli'a1ns; HI F..Barnstt.

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

In ‘this case the novel point was raised, whether anonymous letters sent to the counsel and solicitor acting for the plaintiff in an action, and containing information relating to the matters in question in the action, must be produced for the inspeclion of the defendants. The suit was brought in the Probate Division to recall the probate of a will. on the ground that the execution of the will was obtained by undue influence on the part of the defendants, and that the testator was not of testamentary capacity. Among the documents included in the plaintiffs ailidavit o_f documents which are admitted to be relevant to the matters in question, are four anony mons letters, two of which were written to the plaintifl herself, one of the others being written to her solicitor, the other to her counsel after the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff objected to produce these four letters, and claimed privilege for them, and it was said that the letters contained the names of persons who would be witnesses at the trial, and the purport of their evidence, and that the disclosure of the letters would be equivalent to shewing the defendants the plaintiff's brief. Butt, J ., held that all the letters must be produced.

Tin: COURT or Arrissi. (Corrou, Lmnnar, and Bowaiv, L.-IJ.) aflirmed the decision as to the letters to the plaintiff, but reversed it _as_to the other letters. Con-orz, L.J., said that the case was_a new one in its _circumstances, and the question was whether it came within any recognized principle upon which the court had admitted professional privilege as a defence to the production of documents. There was _no ground for refusing to produce the two letters addressed to the plaintiff herself. She was bound to give her opponents the benefit of the information she had, unless she could swear that it had been obtained by her m order that it might be communicated to her sohcitor for the purposes of the _su1t. Her afildavit did not say that. With regard to the two letters _written to the counsel and the solicitor, the defendants’ counsel had admitted at the bar that he could not suggest any other reason why those letters were sent than that the persons to whom they were written were employed as counsel and solicitor in this suit, and in reference to the objects of the suit. The proper inference was that they were sent for that reason. If a solicitor was employedlo collect information for the purposes of an action, and he asked for information, either publicly or from a particular individual, the information which he thus obtained would be protected from production,_otherwise it would be impossible for a client to employ a solicitor to obtain information for the purgioses of_an action. The information thus obtained was really the result o_ the solicitor’s labour and skill. In his lordship's opinion the letters in question were sent in pursuance of an implied request arising from the_ position of the persons to whom they were sent as counsel and solwimlh and they came within the principle that information obtained by a solicitor for his client for the _ purposes of a ‘llClg8ll0D was protected from disclosure. The solicitor had really obtained the information containedin the letter, for it was sent to him on account of his position as solicitor. The_ principle. tl1erBf0l9, appliedLiivonnv, L.J., said the letters to the plaintiff herself could not be protected merely because she had communicated them to her solicitor. _His lordship had felt some doubt as to the other letters,_becaus_e the plaintiff s aifidavit did not state explicitly that they were written with reference to this litigation. l‘.iut_it was a fair inference that they must have been so written. The principle of protection on the _g_round of professional privilege did not depend npon whether the solicitor had sought_folr tale information, but upo_n the character in which he had got it. InBhi;) Z3shi 's opinion the principle laid down in liustr-as v. Flflufa (l_Q. - ~ t dl and).Lysll v. Kennedy (9 App. Gas. Sljlapplied. "filo dl8$1Il°]"1°_l1 mggcs 9 1 that the information had not been obtained by the so igitor, Bria-1.1186 it had been sent to him spontaneously, was too refined. céwsigifled said that the letters to the plaintiff herself were obviously no endimc It any privilege. The question as to the other letters was more u .


0 and calculated to benefit the general body,

[ocr errors]

The rule was thus laid down by Lord Blackburn in Lyell v. Krmwdy (9 App.

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

Mr. Jones was, in 1839, by resolution, appointed clerk to the Commissioners for the Deanhead Reservoir, without any mention of his remuneration. By resolution, in 1841, the commissioners fixed the yearly salary of the clerk at £15, such salary not to include money out of pocket or law business arising out of the affairs of the commissioners; and Mr. Jones was subsequently paid the amount of various bills of costs. As to some bills, however, in respect of business done on behalf of the commissioners between l883 and 1886, the commissioners repudiated their liability in respect of these bills, as to some of the items, on the ground that they had not authorized the business charged for in them. On the 13th of December, 1886, Mr. Jones obtained the common order to tax, but the commissioners moved to discharge the order, on the ground that, as the retainer of Mr. Jones was disputed, the order was not a proper one.

Sriauuo, J., in deciding the question, said that it was settled that, where it was the client who obtained the common order to tax, he could not displpte the retainer as to the whole bill, though he might do so as to particu r items; it he desired to dispute the whole bill he must obtain a special order enabling him to do so. There was no authority precisely in point where the solicitor obtained the common order; it became necessary, therefore, to consider what was the reason for the rule in the case of the client who had obtained a common order to tax. In R: Bracy (8 Beav. 266) the rule was thus laid down: The party prosecuting the common order for taxation may; object, on the ground of want of retainer, to any items of the bi , except those for which he has admitted the retainer by his petition. This shewed that the rule was merely founded on the admission of retainer which the practice required the client to make to obtain the common order to tax. But when the solicitor obtained the order the client was in no way bound by the allegation of retainer (on the part of the solicitor). His lordship therefore held that when the solicitor obtained the order the reason for the rule failed, and consequently that the client mi ht object to every item on the ground of want of retainer. His lOl‘ds§)lp understood that, in fact, the practice of the taxing masters was in accordance with this view. In this case, therefore, he was of opinion that the common order was not improper and ought to stand.

Besides this point others were discusse in argument, and his lordship, b agreement, expressed his opinion upon them. They were as follows :—Hs was contended on behalf of Mr. Jones, in respect of other items, that his appointment as clerk was a retainer of him as solicitor to the commiss oners, who, on the other hand, regarded them as disbursements by him as clerk and not as solicitor, he not having been retained, and urged that they could not be brought into the bills of costs. His lordship was of opinion_ that, assuming that the resolution of 1839 was a retainer of him as solicitor, he became by the resolution of 1841 simply the othcer of the commissioners, and that during the time over which the bills extended, his appointment as clerk was not of itself a retainer. As to the other and remaining items, his lordship was of opinion that they could not be brought into the bills of costs, as the business in respect of which the items were charged was beyond the powers of the commissioners.C0vN5BL,Ingie Joyce; W. Baker. Soi.ioi'i"oiis, Gregor;/, Rawclifie, Q Co.; Bevan Q Bcrndge.

[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors]


The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane London, on Wednesday, the llth inst., Mr. Sidney Smith in the chair. The other directors present were—liicssrs. H. Holland Burne (Bath), H. Morten Cotton, ‘amuel Harris (Leicester), Edwin Hedger, J. H. Kaye, F. lilorrell (Oxford), R. Pennington, Henry Roscoe, H. S. Styan, Frederic T. Woolbert, and J. T. Scott (secretary). A sum of £220 was distributed in grants of relief, thirty-four new members were admitted to the association, and other general business was transacted. It is announced that tickets (25s. each) can now be obtained for the anniversary festival of the association, to be held at the Hotel Métropole, on Thursday, June 9, when Mr. E. J. Bristow is to preside.


The annual meeting of this board was held on the 10th inst. in the Law Library, Liverpool, the chair being taken by Mr. W. A. Jsvoss, chairman of the board.

The report shewed that during the session there had been three courses of lectures, the subjects of the lectures being the law of real property, general principles of equity, and law of trusts and law of torts. The lecturers appointed were Mr. T. Cyprian Williams, LL.B. Mr. J . S. Benton, B.A. (first class honours B. .L. examination), and Mr. Hugh Fraser, M.A., LL.M. The attendance at the lectures were highly satisfactory, the average at each course being fifty, thirty-two, and thirty-three, respectively, whilst the numbers present at the examinations, he d upon the conclusion of each course, were eighteen, ten, and nine, respnactively. In addition to the lectures classes were held, and these a o were regularly attended by the students, many of whom answered the papers which were, from time to time, set by the lecturers. The financia condition of the board appears to be satisfactory, there being a credit balance of about £45. The board, however, are appealing for increased subscriptions to enable them to extend the present scheme of lectures both ll regards the number of lectures forming each course and also in the directlon of providing lectures on additional subjects.

The CHAIRMAN, in submitting the report to the meeting, pointed out that the systematic teaching of law was a matter of quite recent date. The credit seemed to belong to the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom for having made the first attempt to establish anything a proaching to a complete system of instruction in law by lectures. Tihese lectures were naturally confined to the practical departments of law. In 1868, however, an agitation arose among solicitors _fot the establishment of a general law school, afterwards called a law universityThis movement was soon ‘oined by members of the bar, and, ultimately, I society called the Legal Eiducation Association was formed for pt0m0fi1I8 the formation of such a university. This association was Joined bi mill! of the judges and the bar, and the presidency was accepted by the $179‘ sent Earl of Selborne, then Attorney-General. The proposal 111W Y_6d the giving up of the control of legal education by the bodies then intrusted with it--namely, the Inns of Court and the Incorporated LII Society, the former of which gave no encouragement to the project the latter very little. The general public took no interest in the subistii and so nothing was accomplished. As regards Liverpool an attempt W" shortly afterwards made to establish a law school. he lectures failed $0 be self-supporting, and after two or three years were abandoned. The matter was, however, in a few years revived by the law students them; selves, who, through their association, engpged and paid lecturers» 5! their funds were inadequate to do more t an provide a few c0\11'§95° lectures, which did not attempt to cover the who e ground. The chairnilll went on to point out that the funds at the disposal of the board were m‘ sufllcient to meet the requirements, and the board were,_ tlwll°'°i making a strong appeal for increased subscriptions. The chairmim W; eluded by expressing the hope that the board might be_enablod_ to 61" its lectures so as to supply a complete course of legal instruction afield’ ing over a three years’ curriculum.

[ocr errors]

Mr. J . H. KBNION (the President of the Liverpool Law SOOMTY) “mg W. F. Tutors (barrister-at-law) also expressed their apPI°"fl ° work of the board, and wished it hearty success. I

The Giaiiiimsn then presented the prises to the following 9“°c"1::; students:—G. W. Edwards (two prizes), F. U. LBWIB ("'° P“ ’ H. Todd, and G. Hilton Lewis. he

The proceedings were brought to a close with a vote of thanks W I chairman.

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

Blown, George William Fredeyigk
Buckland, Richard William Bowry

[ocr errors]

Batchelor, Arthur George Stephens
Beaumont, Arthur Morton, B.A.
Beck, Frederic Walter

Bell, Thomas

Bennett, Thomas, B.A., LL.B
Black, James Henry
Blakiston, William Graham
Booth, Charles Joseph White
Bottomley, Benjamin, B.A., LL B.
Boyce, Godfrey Hale
Bradley, Charles Septimus
Brierley, Arnold

Brown, Frederick William
Brown, Henry Harold
Calvert, Thomas Laud
Chester, Edward Grenade
Clarke, Thomas

Ciough, Thomas

Coles, Frederic William .
Corlett, William Ernest
Cowburn, Thomas Hattou
Dale, Gordon \Villiam

Davies, Dixon Henry
Deighton, Thomas Howard
Dixon, William Barwise
Douglas, David Fraser, B.A.
Douglas, Robert Bulmer
Drake, Charles Rivers
Edwards, George William
Elgar, James F rederlck

Ellis, Edgar lliackay

Elmaall, Mansfeldt de Cardonnet
Elwin, Arthur Brooke
Euthoven, Charles

Evans, Thomas Robert
Fearnley, James

Forster, Edmund Ryan, B.A.
Foster, Theodore

Geach, \Villiam Gichard
Gall-Woolley, Charles Webster Red
George, William

Glasier, George Mason Glasier
Gordon, George \Valter
Graham, Howard William
Greenland, William Richard
Gregson, Leonard Shuttleworth
Haggitt, Henry Pell Heigham
Hamilton, William Vickers
Hancock, Robert Lowth
Harris, John Darke

Hart, Thomas

Harvey, Lf0pOld Charles
Haslam, Thomas Penman
Heitzman, Charles All:-ed

Hill, Herbert Charles
Holloway, Richard

H-swell, Stephen Nayler
Hubberstey, John

Hughes, Alfred Collingwood
Hunt, Francis J errard
Hutchlngs, John Henry
Hutchinson, Cecil Gwynne

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Kelsall, Samuel James, B.A.
Knott, Joseph Robert
Large, Charles Henry
Inayoock, John Benjamin
Lewis, Harry James
Lewis, Rupert
Lewis, William Lyndhurst
Lloyd, \V1lliam Morgan
Lomax, Thomas Duckworth
Lord, Arthur Edward
Lug,‘ John Montagu George Aine,
Luxton, Arthur Philip
Maclean, Donald
Marsland, Octavius
Mason, Alfred Elliot
Matthews, Robert Edwin Ernest
Matthews, Sydney
Mawson, Isaac Horace
lllills, George Harry, B.A.
Money, Grifllu Cant
Mnrice, Andrew
Motion, George Edgerton
Muuday, William Lusoombe
Muskett, Herbert George
Noave, Frederick George
Newby, J ohu William
Norris, William Bufiton
Nctt, Francis Robert
Oldman, Henry Louis
Osland, Christian
Padmore, Frank Augustus
Paisley, Henry Nelson
Parker, Christopher John
Paterson William Hocken
Phillips, George Ingleton
Pierce. John Hamilton
Price, Charles Thomas
Quennell, J ohu Lewis
eltawlinson, Cecil John
Reed, Theophilus Haynes
Richards, Frank Peet
Rickerby, Thomas Ellerson
Riugrose, Bernard John
Robinson, Frederick Winder
Rocklifl, George
Rose, John William, B A.
Rowlands, John William
Ruddock, Charles Lock, M.A.
Rylauds, Richard \Va1ter
Salmon, Harold Masterman
Sandford, Richard
Serjeant, Bernard Gilpin
Shaw, Arthur Hugh
Shaw, Charles Garibaldi
Shotter, Stanley George
Spencer, Sydney
Spurrell, Richard Edward
Stanley, Edward Lionel
Stenson, Richard James
Stock, Leslie
Thomas, Herbert Edward

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

ll/iay14, 181.7. K ~ q THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. 467

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

H London Gautte.—'1'UEsDAY, May 3. ALLPORT, JOHN, Birmingham, Undertaker. June 1. Ansell I6‘: Ashford, Birmingliam:

BEOEETT. ROBERT, Morecambe, Lancaster, Gent. May 23. Sharp 82 Son, Lancaster

Biacu. EDWIN, Woolton, nr Liverpool, Gent. J une 4. Thornley & Cameron, Liv:-1-pool

BIRCH, JANE, Woolton, nr Liverpool. J une 4. Tnornely & Cameron. Liverpool CLAOETT, THOMAS WILLIAM, Exmouth. June 24. Smith & Co, Crediton

COATES. N1cHoLAs CirARLEs, Remferd rd, Stratford, Gent. June 1. King. Abehiirch lane

COKEB, JAMES, Christchurch, New Zealand. July 1. Payne 8: Fuller, Bath ' Cox, HARRIET, Yeovil. May 31. Phelps 8: Co, Gresham st

CUNNINGTON, J OHN, Oakley sq, Esq. June 14. Whittington & Co, Blshopsgate st Without

DBUM_MOND, JAMES, Great Cumberland pl. June 1. Newman & Co, Clement's inn

DUTHOIT, J ONATEAN, Kentwell Lodge, Highbury New Park, Silk Manufacturer. May 31. Carritt 8: Son Rood lane‘

[ocr errors]

GEORGE, ARTHUR, Gosport, Southampton, Gent. June 1. Coaks & Co, Norwich

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

SL1NosRY, EDITH ELIZABETH, Snlcombe Regis, Devon. May 31. Summers, Furnival's inn _

SMITH. J OsEPH. New John st West, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. June 1. Ansell 8: Ashford, Birmingham

Smrrn. LEIGH CHURCHILL, '.[‘Onb1'idge Wells, Esq. J uce 15. Alleyne & Walker, Tonbridge Wells _

SMYTH, MARY, Tonbridge Wells. June 15. Alleyne & Walker, Tonbridge Wells

STALLARD, JAirEs, Bath. June 1. Dixon, Bristol

STREET. HENRY GEORGE, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. June 1. Ansell & Ashford. Birmingham

TowNDRow, WILLIAM WALD0cx, Spencer st, Canonbury, Traveller. June 1. Tippctts & Son, Maiden lane

WA'ri~;Rs, WILLIAM, Scarborough, Ironfounder. May 14. Drawbridge & Rowatree. Scarborough

WARD, JONATHAN, Derby, Fitter. May 18. Smith & Leech, Derby

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

Ord May 3 l

« PreviousContinue »