Page images
PDF
[graphic]
[graphic]

inconsistent alternative defences of fact, and that the defence was embarrassing, but he gave the defendant leave to amend.

THE COURT or APPEAL (Lixnter and Bowen, L.JJ.) reversed the decision. Lisnrsr, L.J., said that North, J., had construed rule _~l too strictly, and as meaning that a defendant could never plead inconsistent alternative defences. The rule only meant that the defendant must state clearly the facts on which he intended to rely. He might intend to rely on different sets of facts as leading to different conclusions. An executor would very probably not know any of the facts, but he could not safely simply put the plaintiff to proof of his case, for he might then be prevented from relying on some defence at the trial because he had not pleaded it. An executor could hardly plead in any other way than this defendant had done—viz., by raising all the defences which were likely to arise, and then at the trial he would rely on the defence which he could prove. Nothing was more common in an action of debt in the Q,ueen’s Bench Division than for a defendant to plead “ never indebted," “ payment," and “ set off." Bowen, L.J., concurred. The order of North, J., was discharged, and it was ordered that the defendant should, within fourteen days after discovery of documents by the plaintiffs, either amend his defence, or give particulars of those defences which the plaintiffs asked to have struck out. The costs of this application in both courts to be costs in the action.—Coimsiii., Aspland, QC.. and Upjnhri; CounsHurdy, Q.O., and B. lyre. Sotrc1'roris,_1[/irgari, Son, Q lfiiijahn; Crane!/, Spemar, §' Edwards.

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

tion being whether an equitable mortgagee by deed of freehold land, selling the mortgaged property under the power conferred by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, can convey the legal estate to the purchas r. Section 19 of the Act gives to a mortgagee, when the mortgage is made by deed, a power, when the mortgage-money has become due, to sell the mortgaged property, the power being given “ to the like extent as if it had been in terms conferred by the mortgage deed, but not further.” Section 20 imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of the power, and section 21 provides that “ a mortgagee exercising the power of sale conferred -by this Act shall have power by deed to convey the property sold, for such estate and interest therein as is the subject of the mortgage, freedfrom all estates, &c.,to whichthemortgage has priority, but subject to all estates, &c.. which have priority to the mortgage, except that, in the case of copyhold or customary land, the legal right to admittance shall not pass by a deed under this section, unless the deed is sufiicient otherwise by law, or is suflicient by custom, in that behalf.” The corresponding section (section 15) of Lord Cranworth's Act ('23 & 24 Vict. c. 1-iii) empowered the person exercising the sale, by deed “to convey or awign to and vest in the purchaser the property sold, for all the estate and interest therein which the person who created the charge had power to dispose of, except that in the case of copyhold hereditaments the beneficial interests only shall be conveyed to and vested in the purchaser by such deed." North, J., held that the mortgagee could only convey the estate which he himself had.

Tira Couin or APPEAL (Oorron, Lrunnnr and Bowen, L JJ) aflir ed

l

_ This was an appeal from the decision of North, J . (ante, p. 254) the quese

i , . . m

the decision. Cor'ro.\', L.J., said that section 21 gave the mortgagee power to convey that which was sold, and section 19 gave no power to se l the legal estate when the mortgagee had only an equitable estate. The language of section 21 differed from that of section 15 of the Act of 1800, and the difierence was no doubt intentional. LINDLEY and Bowen, L.JJ., %n}:)ur;ed.—CouxseL, J. B. Porter ; Inypan. Soi.ici'roas, 0. G. Harman,

- ll?‘ {M'

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

By a deed of the 10th of March, 1747, Sir T. Webster granted a lease of one acre of laiid for 150 years from the 25th of March then next, at a igaiilt of one shilling a year, if demanded, to several persons, including the I mgr of East Griustead, as ii site for_u workliouse for that parish. The

H11 “V388 nOt_i0 be let or sold, but might be given up to the lessor, if not
Ihaenmoiton his patyiiig for the building. This deed was not enrolled under
IT‘-'6 amilpglri Lh 11116 worknouse was built, but no rent was paid after
tl , e esseesso d the site and conveyed it, in fee simple, to

is defendants The plaintiff who was admitted t b th '

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

it was not enrolled, it did not take effect in possession, and there was a
reservation in favour of the grantor. It was not saved by the provisions
of 7 6: 8 Vict. c. 101, s. T3, which only cured the want of enrolment. The
Poor Law Act, 1722, s. 4, did not affect the Mortmain Act, except that it
avoided the necessity of guardians of the poor obtaining a licence to hold
land in mortmain. The grant to them must be in the form prescribed by
the Mortmain Act. The lease was, therefore, void, ab initio, and the
action must be dismissed, with cost-s.—Coimsi:1.i., Sir H. Davey. Q. C. ;
Elton, Q.G., and Jemmelt ,- Rigby, Q.G., Remhruo, Q.G., and F. Tlwmpiwn
SOLICITORS, Haxlies §- G'1'au;f‘ord; R. C. Adams Beck.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

In this case an application was made by the defendants under R. S._C., 1883, XVI., 48, for leave to issue a. third party notice. A similar application had already been refused on the ground that the psrtysouglit to be joined was not a party against whom any right of nidemnity was made out. Chitty, J.’s refusal was aiiii-med by the Appeal Court (3a W. R. 1i3, 34 Oh. D. 261). The defendants now alleged the execution, on the lst of March, 1887, of a conveyance which altered the circumstances, and, accordingly, again applied for an order. _

Ci-iii-rr, J ., said that it was not necessary to decide whether the eonveyance gave the right of indemnity alleged. The application _was_. in his judgment, made too late, and therefore failed. _Such applications should, as a general rule, be made before the time limited for delivery of defence, and at the latest before the close of the pl.9BdlDsfi.——CDUNSBL, Romti‘, Q,.C., and Woodrofe; Inca, Q.O., and 0. L. Clara. Soi.ici'roas, Robinson, Preston, 4 Slow; C. N. Mason.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

In this case the question arose as to whether the Royal National Lifeboat Institution was absolutely entitled to a transfer of a legacy of £10,000, bequeathed to it on condition of constructing and maintaining two lifeboats according to directions contained in the testetor‘s will, and coupled with a gift over on non-compliance. Attorney-Geiierol v. Chm! i Hospital (1 Russ. 8.: M. 626) and Re Coiiingloifs Will (B W. 444) were referred to, and it was admitted, on behalf of the institution, that as it accepted the gift it had also accepted an obligation in the nature ofa t u t

r s .

Ci-ii-rrr, J ., said that there were cases in which such conditions had been held to be trusts. He was of opinion that that was so in the present case. He made an order as B.8l(8d.—-COUNSEL, Rainer, Q.O., and L. Ftlldl Vaughan Hawkins. Souciroiis, Peacock if Goddard, for Gupron Q 811111/mi Guildiord; Clayton, Sons, Q Fargics.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This was a motion by Messrs. Younger & 00., brewers, of Edinbl1l'8h» to strike out from the register of trade-marks a mark registered by J - HBiegel, of Amsterdam, a shipper of Pilsen beer, on the ground that such mark so closely resembled the applicants’ mark as to be calculated to deceive. The applicants had used their mark for ale and stout for twenty years, and registered it in March, 1886, in class ~13 for fermented liquO;‘!The respondent had also registered in class 43 in September, 1356i__°1i bottled beer, the mark complained of. Both marks consisted of fanciiu' arrangements of triangles, but such arrangements differed, the flRPl1°"l:‘“ triangles being two placed on a third, and the respondent s beings, re; triangles interlaced, and in the centre of the applicants’ mark was a_ 1311“ space, but the space in the centre of the respondent's mark contame stag’s head. It was submitted by the respondent that there was nor;-t semblance between the two marks as actually used, _an_d tllfli "19Ede time for interference by the court was when a case of imitation was mile out against the respondent of colouring, &c., his mark so as to resefl: W the applicants’ mark. The applicants. however, relied on Re W01‘!/""9 '7" Trade-.-llark (28 W. R. 749, 14 Ch. D. S). t he

Ci-irrrr, J., said that, in respect of the triangular arranganien 5'heu held that there was such a resemblance as was calculated to deceive ‘E b the nature of the marks was considered and the way they were “ii? ‘um! being aflixed to bottles, and especially because neither the aiZ1P;°*‘lmy nor the respondent’s mark was registered so as to be confine fills particular colours. Under the provisions of the Patents, &c.-_ Act ° 10;,’ the respondent was not bound to use his mark in any parti_cu_lar 00 WE; but he could retain the outline of his mark, and could colour it igvflfilig the he thought fit, provided that he did not entirely obliteratevit. _ em Rt marks in the present case were compared with those in issue S was lT’ort/iingfon'.\' rma-.i1i.r;.-, the resemblance between the W0 ¢'“?uc, P1, very striking; and the present case, therefore, fell Within thfiblgrlut to enunciated in the case cited, that when the use the mark 111181“ . P He’ by being coloured, was considered, it would be calculated to decfllvepion 0% therefore, should make an order, with costs, as asked. mlrecmica Mk as the register by expuiiging therefrom so much of the respondent S mlmd J. consisted of a triangular arrangement.--Cuussaii. R"'"”'1 QC" _ L9,-. Cutler ; Maclerm, Q.C., and 7VIu'iin¢*3/. SOLICITORS, Mm-kerinu 6‘ 0°-'

I laler 5* 6'0.

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

This was :1 petition under the Trustee Act. A sum of stock stood in the names of the two trustees of a se'tlemant. Both the trustees were dead, and there was no personal representative of the survivor. The petitioner had, under the trusts of the settlement, become absolutely beneficially entitled to the fund. Section 25 of the Trustee Act, 1850 provides that “when any stock shall be standing in the sole name of a deceased person, and his or her personal representative shall be out of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, or cannot be found, . . . it shall be lawful for "‘-e Court of Chancery to make an order vesting the right to transfer such .tock, or to receive the dividends or income thereof, in any person or persons whom the said court may appoint,”

lvun'l'H, J., following Re Dis-an’s Trusts (21 W. R. 220), held that he could not, under that section, vest the right to transfer the stock in anyone but a trustee of the settlement. He accordingly appointed the petitioner to be sole trustee, and vested the right to transfer in hi'm.— Uotmsat, J. F. Wayystt. Soniciroas, Gust-alts, Wad/mm, g~ Day.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In this case, the defendant not having delivered a statement of defence within the time limited for the purpose, the lsintiff set down the action upon motion for judgment. After this had) been done, but before the motion came on for hearing, the defendant delivered a defence and counter-claim, and on the hearing of the motion (as a short cause) the defendant appeared by counsel. The plaintiffs counsel admitted, on the authority of Gill v. 7VnoqY/in (32 W. R. 393, 25 Oh. D. 707) that, though the statement of defence had been delivered after the proper time, it could not be treated as a nullity, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment for default of pleading, but he asked that the notice of motion might be amended, and that judgment might be given for the plaintiff on admissions in the defence.

Noam, J ., having looked at the defence, said that he could not treat it as sufllcient admission of the plaintiffs case, especially as there was s. counter-claim. The plaintiff must proceed in the ordinary way, but the defendant must pay the costs of the motion in any 8Vel1i7.—COI7NSBL, 11¢"!/: F. W. Hezthar. Sonicrrons, Blytls ; W, §- W. Rees Davies 5- Co.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1?)’ a purchase agreement, dated the 17th of February, 1881, under which the plaintiff company purchased their business from the defendant, the defendant covenanted that he would not, so long as the company Fhmlid, carry on within 100 miles of London the business of a dairy farmer or assist as principal or servant in nny such business. The defendant, who was formerly the managing director of the defendant company, had lately become chairman of a rival company—namely, the Home Counties Dairy Supply Association (Lim.). The plaintiff company had Rqently been ordered to be wound up under the direction of the court, and sliquidator had been appointed. The plaintiff company now moved to restrain the defendant from holding the olfice of chairman, director, or "Y other ofllce in or under the Home Counties Dairy Supply Association (Um). The motion was resisted by the defendant upon the ground (3m°11E others) that, under the circumstances, the company had ceased to °"fyQI11ts business, and consequently that the covenant was not now °PQrative.

sT““-1", J , said that the question was one of fact whether the Qomsavy were now carrying on their business. The business was being “med "11 by an oflicer of the court with a view to its sale as a going concern. That was not a carrying on of the business by the company. There hi-"1. therefore, been no breach of the covenant, and the motion lllllst be refused.—CouxsaL. ]Iast:'ny.v, Q.C., and‘ Daniel Jones; Buckley, Q-C-1 811d Dzmlmm. Soucirons, Allen §- Edwards ; Crawdy, San, 4' Torry.

[ocr errors]

ergitlglwas an action to restrain the breach of a covenant that the houses
o

in ii a_ certain piece of land “ should not be used or occupied, either

1Wl1Ol6 or in part, as public-hoiises or beershops, nor as shops for the 5'1 B. Whether by wholesale or retail, of wine, ale, or spirituous liquors, flicellt W1"! the permission in writing ofthe plaintiff, his heirs, or assigns." be ° bleach was not denied; the sole question being whether there had h °l1 acquiescence on the plaintiff's part. In 1875 the lot upon which the hlflllsesheld by the defendant was built was sold to her predecessor in title. and 2 a butcher, under some agreement, got possession of the premises, Wu ‘>21 the 2_3rd of August, 1884, obtained an off licence. The defendant bo ‘:1?! this time carrying on business as an hotel-keeper in the neighHm: °°d- Hid complained to the duke's agent about the grant of the jnmé>8- On the 2§th of August, 1884, the agent wrote to the clerk to the at th is-_wmplaining of the grant of the license, but took no further step inlora “time. On the 10th of September, 188-1, the defendant, without the 0'; HE the duke s agent about her intention, purchased the house and

t

i August, 1885, the defendant obtained from the justices a renewal of the

licence. A petition was presented by some of the neighbours complaining
of the breach, and on the 23rd of August, 1885, proceedings were ordered
to be taken to restrain the defendant.
, KEKB\\'ICI{, J., said there was in this case no question of fact except

this, whether there had been acquiescence on the plaintiff's part such as
would prevent him from claiming an inj unction. It was common ground that
there was a restrictive covenant which had been broken, and that the
defendant took the property with actual notice of the covenant. The
principles guiding the court in cases where acquiescence is set up were laid
down in the old authority of the Du/in 0f.Leed.v v. Amherst (2 Ph. 123).
‘~ “ Acquiescence is not the term which ought to be used. If a party, having

a right, stands by and sees another dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with that right, and makes no objection while the act is in progress, he cannot afterwards complain. That is the proper sense of the word acquiescence. The defence, therefore, which is really intended to be set up is not acquiescence, but release or abandonment of the party’s right ” This was indorsed in the cases of Hcyy v. Scott (18 Eq. 444), and Dc Busschs v. All (8 Ch. D286). The Vice-Chancellor in the former case said: "The omission to take any proceedings at law or in equity for a time does not in itself appear to me an encouragement to the defendant amounting to an equitable bar in this court." There was also apassage to the same effect in the second of the above cited cases. Sayers v. Oollyer (28 Ch. D. 103) was clearly distinguishable. The defendant knew of the first breach of the covenant and had herself endeavoured to prevent it, but then bought up the property without again communicating in any way with the Duke. The delay from August, 1884, to October, 1885, when notice had been given complaining of the defendant’s acts, was not such as to prevent the plaintiff from now insisting on an injunction, since the Duke had never, according to the requirements of Lord Oottenham's definition, stood by so as to assent to what was dOl16.—-COUNSEL, Barber, Q.C., and Yale lee; Sen:/Ird Brice and A. A. Baker. SOLICITORS, Bell, , Stewards, 4 May ,- T. Cray for Di‘: 5» Warluw, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

~
BANKRUPTCY CASES.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This was an appeal from a decision of Cave, J . (35 \V. R. 458), the question being whether section 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which makes void under certain circumstances, as againt the trustee in a bankriiptcy, voluntary settlements executed by the bankrupt, applies in the administration of the estate of a deceased insolvent under section 125 of the Act. A debtor died insolvent, and an action to administer his estate was commenced in the Chancery Division. On the application of a creditor, an order was made transferring the proceedings to the Court of Bankruptcy. and that court made an order for the administration of the estate. The official receiver applied to the court for an order declaring void as against him a post-nuptial settlement which the debtor had executed. Cave, J., dismissed the application, on the ground that section 47 did not apply to an administration under section 125.

THE Gouiir or APPEAL (Lord Esuaa, M.lt., and Fax’ and Lor-as, L..IJ.), aflflrmed the decision. Lord Esi-um, M.R., said that he agreed with every reason given by Cave, J ., for his conclusion. What was the estate with which section 125 was dealing? Was it merely the estate of the deceased debtor, or did it include also property of other persons P In a bankruptcy that which passed to the trustee was the “property of the bankrupt." The law of bankruptcy, under certain circumstances, dealt with the property of other persons as well as that of the bankrupt, but the power to do so was conferred in plain terms. It had been pointed out to the Legislature by the decisions upon section 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, that, if at any time they intended in such statutes as these that the estates of other persons should be dealt with, besides the estate which was tho main subject of the legislation, they should say so in plain terms, otherwise the legal effect would be that their legislation would not extend beyond the estate which was being administered. In the bankruptcy part of this Act the Legislature, when they wished to deal with the property of third persons, had said so distinctly; but when they cams to deal with the estates of deceased debtors they deliberately left out the words necessary for that purpose, and in every clause of section 125 confined the subject-matter carefully to the estate of the deceased debtor. Under subsection 6 of nection 125, the provisions of Part III. of the Act, relating to the administration of the property of a bankrupt, were to apply to an administration order uiider section 125, “So far as the same are applicable." Section 47 would applv, not to the property of the deceased debtor, but to the property of the triistees of the settleinent—i'.e., to the property of third persons. Therefore the provisions of section 47 were not applicable. Far and Lcras, L JJ., concurred.

The counsel for the ofiicial receiver asked for leave to appeal tothe
House of Lords, but the court refused the application.—Covssai., Biy/mm,
Q.C., Illuir lilac/.-euzic, and A. G. Jlzzcintyre; Winslow, Q.C., and Yrlte Lea.
Soucirons, Smiles, Binyori, §- Ollard; Reaper: Q Wlzatcly.

L
CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.
Re T. C. & .T. F. KELLOOK (SOLIOITORS)—Stirling, J ., 17th May.

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

This was a petition, on behalf of the trustees for sale of the Bulford

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

Estate, praying a reference to the taxing master to tax a bill of costs. l The Bulford Estate was subject to a mortgage for £18,500 and interest. Messrs. Pickett 5: Myiton, the solicitors to the trustees for sale of the Biilford Estate, inquired of Messrs. Kellock, the solicitors of the mortga gees, whether, upon a contemplated sale, their clients would allow the above sum to remain, and allow the purchasers to inspect the title-deeds of the estate. Messrs. Kellock, after communicating with their clients, assented to the money remaining, and oflered facilities for the inspection re uired. The Bulford Estate was subsequently sold, as proposed, and the titie-deeds duly inspected, and Messrs. Kellock, before and after the sale, rendered other S€!‘V1C€B for which they were entitled to be paid. Messrs. Pickett & Mytton undertook to pay these charges. The evidence was that, when the purchase was about to be completed, the purchasers required that the law charges due to the mortgagees should be paid by the Y9i1d0i'a, the trustees for sale ; whereupon, on the 17th of March, 1887, Messrs. Pickett & Mytton sent Messrs. Kellock this telegram :—“ Please send us any costs you have against us in Bulford's Estate." Correspondence ensued to the following efiect: “ Kellocks to Pickett 8: Mytton.—17th March, 1887.—Letter.

“ Having received your telegram this evening we presume you wish to have our costs at once. They are not draited yet, so we write to know if you require details, or whether you will be satisfied with a general statement audlump sum. If the latter is acceptable we are prepared to name a figure. Having regard to the amount of mortgage, the work done, and our client's accession to your rcposal to allow the money to remain on the security to facilitate a. sale of the estate, we consider that we are entitled to at least 100 guineas. Let us have your views by return.”

“ Pickett & Mytton to Kellocks.—Telegram.

“Acting for trustees we must have details. Please send same as soon as possible.” "Kel10clis to Pickett 8: Mytton.—22nd March, 1887.

“ We now send you our costs, which, considering the importance of the matter, there ought not to be any demur about paying. If further details are required we must furnish them, but as you are aware of all that has passed, we do not expect you will have occasion to ask for them.”

“ Pickett & Mytton to Kellocks.-—March 23rd, 1887. _ “ We have received your letter and the bill of costs which accompanies it. We feel that [our views] as to what you are entitled to chargsvary so hopelessly from yours, that discussion upon the subject would be fruitless. "We will, therefore, carry your costs in for taxation in. the usual way. _ _ “ Kellocks to Pickett 8: Mytton.-2-lth March, 1887.

“ If itis your intention to carry our costs in for taxation without any attempt _on your part to settle the amount, we must, of course, instruct some solicitor in London to attend on our behalf to produce the papers, and explain the nature of the case. We must admit we did not anticipate the course you have indicated."

“ Morse, Hewitt, & Farman (on behalf of Kellocks) to Pickett & Mytton.

—29th March, 1887.

“We _are instructed by Messrs. Kellock herein. On their behalf we must intimate that, unless your firm is personally liable to pay the costs (upon which point we are not instructed), we contend that no bill has been delivered to the persoiis liable to pay, and give you notice thata proper bill shall be prepared and sent in. Our clients think you are not dealing fairly with them in the matter, and, considering the large amount of work done by them, their charges are, in our view, very reasonable. ‘ \Ve understand, further, you decline to specify your objections to any part of the rough bill, which was completed in a great hurry in order to help _you as much as possible, and in compliance with your telegram of the lith and 18th inst.” The bill of costs above mentioned was headed

The Trustees of Mr. and Mrs. I-I. H. Lee’s Settlement," [the mortgagees ] Account of costs and expenses of Messrs. Kellcck . . . in connection with the mortgage for £18,500 upon, and the sale of, the Bulford Estate.” It was °bJe°$9d» 011 the part of the respondents, Messrs. Kellock :—(l) that the delivery to the solicitors of the mortgagors, instead of to the mortgagors themselves, was improper, and that, therefore, the bill could be withdrawn ;_ (2) that no bill had been delivered to the mortgagees, and that the PetmQl1eP9| Wl10_ were only third parties, could only tax a bill oi‘ copy ot a bill so deliverid; (3) that the alleged bill of costs was not Intended "5 5 bl“ °f C0538 ; (4) that the application should have been by summons and not by petition.

h5Tl_R1-W0, J., held (1) that Messrs. Pickett & Mytton were acting, under t e °“'°“m°u"1°9B, "1 the scope of their employment in requiring a bill of costs to be sent, and a bill delivered to them could not be withdrawn; (3) that this objection failed—fii-st, because Messrs. Pickett & Myttou had become persons liable to pay the bill under their undertaking, and, secondly, that delivery of the bill to the mortgagees was not necessary; (3) that the bill delivered was a bill of costs, and as to further details they iggéd jilqrgigenron the taxation ; (ff) that it was true that, under R. S. C., t hiv b- (£0), I-he special application, which was here necessary, ought to lobe leer‘; ly summons and not by petition ; but, acting under ord. 70,

' _ i 1“ °Y l‘ "P fillowed the I)t‘lllln1lL'l’S the same costs as of a summons B11101-ll'l1P|d 111150 Cf)DXt_—il0I‘NSEL, .Har1"i.i Len ; Gralmm Hastings, Q.C., and -E'“t“'-“ ‘5""”'- 5°!-WITORB, Pickett 4- J13/tton ; Morse, Hnrilt, Q Farman.

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

not being barristers, practising in the courts of law and equity of the United Kingdom (commonly known as “The Incorporated Law Society"), except eight of such members who were defendants, for an i'ntm'm injunction torestrain the defendants (being the society and such eight members who were eight out of the thirty-nine members of the council) from confirming a resolution passed at a meeting of the society on the 28th of January, 1887, or, in the alternative, from permitting the Law Society Club, or the committee thereof, to elect as a member, honorary or otherwise, of the club any person not being a member of the society. The material facts were as follows :—By the charter of the Incorporated Law Society in 1845, the capital, possessions, and income of the society applicable tor_its general purposes, were directed to be applied in “promoting professional improvement and facilitating the acquisition of legal knowledge," and the society was (among other things) empowered to make bye-laws, fixing the conditions and the manner upon and in which persons being eligible for membership, but not residing in England, should be admitted to the rooms of the society and to alter such bye-laws. And the council might, by their bye-laws, appropriate such part of the socicty’s buildings as they should think fit asclubrooms, subject to such regulations as the council should approve. During the whole time of the society's existence there had been a club in connection with it, which had occupied part of its premises. Downto 1884 this club consisted exclusively of members of the defendant society. In 1884 the club was dissolved, and a new one, which is the present Law Society Club, was formed. Resolutions were passed at that time by the defendant society that the council should take possession of the premises to be vacated by the old club, and permit them tobe used by the members of the new club; and regulations were made providing that the new club should be confined to members of the society, and that no alteration should be made in such last mentioned rule except in pursuance of a resolution passed by and confirmed at the general meeting of the society. Since then the club had consisted entirely of members of the society, and they had been permitted to use certain rooms on the society's premises. On January 28 last a resolution was passed that “the committee" of the Law Society's Club “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 members any person not being a member of the Incorporated LBW Society, bnt that the number of such honorary members shall not at any time exceed twenty.” This was the resolution against which_ the present motion was directed. By the writ in the action the plaintifi Glfllllwdl declaration that the proposed permission to the club to elect members who were not members of the society was ultrri 1-ire.-2.

Si-iiii,i.\‘o, J., said that the plaintiff did not by his notice of motion seek to prevent the Law Society Club from using the rooms of the society in pursuance of the resolution in that behalf, which, inasmuch as it would have been equivalent to an order for ejectment, the court would I0‘ have done on an interlocutory application, but the relief which he asked was confined to the resolution of January 28. Interference by the com with the enjoyment of the rooms by the club being out of the question. could it be said that the admission of a certain number of addlilolllil members as proposed was such an infringement of the constitution _of the society as to call for the interference of the court? His loi'dsl_1lP though tit was not. It theexisting members of the club were “ ptomlm-I18 professional improvement and facilitating the acquisition of lc8$l km" ledge,” which it must be assumed that they were doing, his lofdflllill did not see why a few additional members oould not contribute tot-be same object. Nor was it possible to say that they _could not do so because the new members were not members of, or eligible for membership of, the Law bociety, for it was not suggested that legal kllollledge was confined to persons who satisfied that condition. The motion W85 refused.—Cot'xsai., Gazdur ; Hastings, Q.C., and Joyce. SOLICITO": (loldii-oti 5' Sim; E. IV. Williamson.

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

On the 9th of July, 1885, Mr. W. M. Pybus, a solicitor, who had beep employed by his client to raise certain moneys for him upon l11°"8*‘5f}& sent to his client a cheque for the balance of the mortgage-lIl°11°Yi his also an account shewing how such balance was arrived at, and B15‘? m_ bill of costs, the amount of which he had deducted. The client WM plained of the amount of the bill, and some correspondence ensued this reference thereto. Mr. Pybus offered to deduct £1 12s. 8d-v lmd “'3 M0 client a cheque for that amount, which the client, however, Teinsfirhe accept in settlement, although he retained and cashed the ch¢¢l“°- m S client instructed Mr. Pybus to have the bill taxed, but he took 113“ fills for doing so, though still acting as his solicitor in other matters. the bin 23rd of July, 1886, the client instructed another sohcitor to get ‘man’ taxed, who on the 31st of July, 1886, issued a summons for flaming The main objections to the bill were that the solici!_o1v m°“3 “ding only for the mortgagor, had charged his client procuration feesimsen. to the scale allowed to the mortgageds solicitor, though he h dmch paid such fees to the mortgagee’s solicitors, and that he had_°h‘“'5e "hm, fees as scale charges. A further objection was taken to one item I11 Ming the scale charge was made for deducing title, pfl'1lB1!JE “ad comp mortgage, although no abstract was in fact delivered. ht that

Ci-ii-rrv, J ., directed the bill to be taxed, as he thong “huge

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

May 21, i887. 7 THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. 481

[graphic]
[graphic]

the fact that the solicitor had not taken steps to have the bill taxed when
directed to do so was a special circumstance which would take the case
our. of the rule, although the bill had been delivered over twelve months.-
COUNHBL, It. F. Norton; F. H. Colt. Soniciroiis, P.mi.wn, Wigy, Q 0'0. ; Nash,
Field, Q Withers.

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

Sir WILLIAM Yoimri, late Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, died about a week ago at the age of eighty-eight. Sir W. Young was the son of Mr. John Young, of Falkirk, and was born in 1799. He was educated at the University of Glasgow. He was called to the bar in Nova Scotia in 1826, and he became a Queen’s Counsel for that colony in i843. He was for many years a member of the Nova Scotian Parliament, of which body he was Speaker from 1843 till 1854. He was Attorney-General of Nova Scotia from 1854 till 1859, and he became Chief Justice in 1860. and judge of the Court of Admiralty in 186-1. He received the honour of knighthood in 1869, and he retired from the bench in 1881. Sir \V. Young was married to the daughter of Mr. Michael Tobin, of Halifax.

Mr. Joim ARTKIJR Dawn, solicitor, Town Clerk of Batley, died at Bournemouth on the 8th inst., after a somewhat long illness. Mr. Deane was admitted a solicitor in 1871, having served his articl es with his father, whom he succeeded as Town Clerk of Batley. He was also clerk to the borough magistrates, and after the passing of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, he was appointed ofilcial receiver in bankruptcy for the Dewsbury District. Mr. Deane was a perpetual commissioner for the West Riding of Yorkshire. He was, at the time of his death, associated in partnership with his younger brother, Mr. Edgar Ernest Deane.

Sir JOHN PETER De Gnx, Q_C., died suddenly at his residence, 20, Hydepark-square, on the 14th inst., at the age of seventy-eight. Sir J. De Gex was the eldest sou of Mr. John De Gex, and was born in 1809. He was formerly fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, where he graduated as a wrangler in 1831. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s-inn in Hilary Term, 1835, and he practised for many years in the Court of Chancery and in the Court of Bankruptcy. He will be remembered as one of the old school of authorized reporters, his name extending through a long series of equity reports. In 1865 he received a silk gown from Lord Westbury, and after his promotion he appeared chiefly in bankruptcy appeals, but he relinquished his practice a few years ago. He was a beucher of Lincoln’s-inn, of which society he was treasurer in 1882, and In that capacity he received the honour of Kuighthood on the opening by the Queen of the Royal Courts of Justice. Sir J . De Gex was an honorary fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. He was married to the eldest daughter of Sir John Henry Briggs.

APPOINTMENT-S.

Mr. Psrim DB Lanna Lose, solicitor (of the firm of Moiickton, Long, &Gi-irdiner), of 17, Lincoln's-inn-fields, has been appointed Solicitor to the Fcundling Hospital. Mr. Long was admitted a solicitor in 1858.

Mr: Asriioiz Wnmisii PEARCE, solicitor, of Southampton, has been
appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of
Judicature.

Mr. Jsxss Hssar Ksim, solicitor (of the firm of Robins, Cameron, &
Kemni), _of Gresham House, Old Broad-street, has been appointed a
Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. FRANK HOLYOAKB, solicitor, of Droitwicli and Bromsgrove, has
been appointed Clerk to the Stoke Prior School Board. Mr. Holyoake was
admitted a solicitor in 1878.

Mr. Josi/ii-i SADLEK EMPSON, solicitor, of North Walsham, has been lPP¢}l!1t-ed Clerk to the Preston United District School Board. Mr. Empson i_s clerk to the North Walaham Local Board, and clerk to the county magistrates and the Commissioners of Taxes at that place. He was admitted a solicitor in 1869.

Mr. EDMUND Tsnaor PALMER, solicitor, of Portsmouth, Portsea, South$58, and Gosport, has been appointed Clerk to the Alverstoke Local

. °"d- Mr. Palmer was admitted a solicitor in 1870.

Clllir. TURNER Comm, solicitor. of Safiron Walden, has been appointed
f "ii i-0 the Commissioners of Taxes for the ¥Valden Division of Essex and
fir the Linton Division of Csmbridgeshire on the resignation of his father,
Cr. Joseph Thomas Collin. Mr. T. Collin is an M.A. of Trinity College,
sagbndlle. He was admitted a solicitor in 1877. He is a registrar of the
Dd F?" Cmwty Court, and clerk to the magistrates for the Walden
lgilslon and to the Linton Board of Guardians.

a l'_- Aim-non Coox Coots, solicitor, of Horsham and Crowley, has been

nggomted Clerk to the Horsham Board of Guardians, Assessment Com

Cooife. Qchool _Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority. Mr.
° WM admitted a solicitor in 1872.

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

GENERAL.

It is stated that the Archbishop of York has submitted to Mr. Arthur Charles, Q.C., a case on the pew question at St. Mary's Church, Beverley, and that Mr. Charles has furnished a written opinion, in which he says : -—“The churchwardens have no legal right to maintain that they are parish ofiicers only. There is abundant authority that they are the oflicers of the ordinary, authority from a very early period until the present time, especially with regard to the ordering of seats in church.” On the second point Mr. Charles says:—“Iu the event of a difierent direction being given by the vestry and the ordinary as to the arrangement of seats, I think the churchwardens must obey the direction of the ordinary. It they were to disobey it they would be guilty of an ecclesiastical offence. It is to be noticed that there seems to be no direct authority that the bishop, acting himself and not through the medium of his court, has the powerto issue general orders to the churchwardeiis; but it appears to follow from the various cases above referred to that he may do so.” Mr. Charles adds on a third point:—“Churchwardens ought all to act together, but I think the majority can act in opposition to the minority in doing an act in itself lawful."

At the Liverpool Assizes on the 13th inst. a case of Snow v. Etty came before the court. Mr. French, for the plaintiff, said the action was brought by l\1r. Thomas Snow, a chancery barrister, of Liverpool, for libel, against Mr. Thomas Etty, a solicitor practising in the same town. The libel was contained in the statement that Mr. Snow or his clerk had altered a brief after the hearing of a case before the Vice-Chancellor. Mr. Snow was bound to meet the charge as a mun of honour and n barrister, and though unwilling, as a professional man, to go into court in a case of this kind, he had no alternative but to bring the action. He (Mr. French) was glad to say that, upon referring to the registrar of the Court of Chancery, and upon his producing the oflicial bill of costs, Mr. Etty found he was absolutely mistaken in the charge he made, and he now unreservedly withdrew it, expressing regret for having made it under a misapprehension. Mr. Addison was prepared to go further and say that Mr. Etty never intended at any time to make any imputation against Mr. Snow, and upon that Mr. Snow would not, under the circumstances, have taken money from Mr. Etty in such a case. He was content to take judgment for the plaintiff with costs. lllr. Addison said Mr. Etty would desire not merely to apologlzc If What he said had been rnisconceived, but to say that he never intended to cast the smallest reflection on the personal conduct of Mr. Snow, or to suggest anything more than an excess of zeal on the part of Mr. Snow s clerk. Mr. Justice \Vills said the imputation was a most serious one. What was suggested was that Mr. Snow had received a bl'l8f_!I1&1'l(9dl$€ll guineas, and that in his chambers it was altered to fifteen guineas. Such an imputation could not be allowed to pass. He was glad that the result was not one of compromise, because the circumstances would not warrant Mr. Snow accepting any result which did not carry costs. He trusted the result of the case would satisfy everyone who read or_ heard of it that Mr. Snow’s character had been completely set right by his action.

On the 18th inst., at Nottingham, Anthony Bush was summoned for having falsely and williully pretended to be a solicitor in Nottingham on the 31st of March and the lst of April, 1887, not bcing qualified to do so. Mr. Williams (Hunt & \Villiains) appearedlto prosecute on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, and Mr. J. F, Ward was for the defendant, on whose behalf he pleaded guilty. Mr. Williams remarked that the defendant was charged with,a breach of section 12 of the Solicitors Act, the penalty for an offence under that section being £8. The defendant was an accountant, and, in connection with his work, had dealings with medical men in Nottingham, being employed lI1‘COll9(1tll1g their debts. On the 31st of March defendant wrote the_foll0wing letter to a gentleman whose name he need not mention I -— " 43. P°1'i'1'md'Y°B-d, N0ttingl1am.—Dr. F. H01/"ill v. Your-self.-Sir,—I am under the necessity of informing you that, unless the above account be attended to at once, I shall be compelled V to take legal proceedings against you without further notice.—\ ours respectfully, _A. Brsii. That was clearly a lawyer's letter, and was written in a straightforward way. Such letters had from time to time been held to be lawyer s letters. The practice of seiidiug such letters_had become very prevalent in Nottingham, but defendant had promised to hand over the circulars in question to Mr. \Vard for the purpose _of having them_ dc_8i1l'°.Y@d- Uuder those circumstances he asked the magistrates not to inflict the ipifiimum

penalty. On behalf of the defendant Mr._Ward said his client Z pottinpelled after some consideration to plead guilty to s technical biéeac o _“ ti Act. In doing so he wished to say that Bush was not gniltyiil any {V1 I1 fraud or misrepresentation whatever, and he was siire he niig t 8: Bf Yb9':Y that, so far as the words of the statute were wilfully b:-n _; ti: pretend," no offence had been committed. Alderman Bar dr 8:1 ha the defendant inust have known that he had iio_right t0$Bl:‘d oukerglzh 1: circular as he bad done, and he would be fined £n._ Mr. a asd_ 0; the fine might be reduced, but Alderman Barber said that the scn ingeme of such circulars often gut people to a_ great deal of unnecesslary expthe and trouble, and the no they had imposed was quite as ow as y could go. ___

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

at his chambers. ior the appointment of an oflicial liquidator

CAMBRIAN CHEMICAL Co. LmrraD.—Petn for winding up, presented May A directed to be heard before Kay, J .. on Saturday, May 21. Gedgc 8: Lo, O Palace ya: d, Westminster. solors for petners _

NORTH ATLANTIC BTEAMSIIIP Co, LIMlTED.—By an order made by Chitty, dated M 1? 4, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company continue . Abrahams & Co. Old Jewry. solors for petners _

PROTECTOR CARRIAGE AND Honsa INSURANCE Co. LIlim*_sn.—Chitty, J .. has, an order dated March 12, appointed Charles Fletcher Richardson, 4, Tokciilio bldgs. to be ofiicial liqiiidator

WYCLIFFI: STEAMSHIP U0, LIMITED.-Creditors are require 1. on or before -In 10, to send their namcs and addresses, and the partic-ilu.rs of their debts claims. to Frederick Bertram Smart, 22, Queen st. Cheansldc. Friday, J uiie at 12, is appointed for hearing and adj udicating noon the debts and claims

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND CLUB, Bell Inn, High st, Dudley, Worcester. May 10

ECONOMIC £10 BURIAL SOCIETY, 8. Union st. Canterbury. Kent. May 10

Union PRIDE LODGE, United Odd Fellows, Bolton Unity, Brown Cow In
Rochdale, Lancaster. May 5

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 17.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
LIMITED In CHANCERY.

DAKOTA STOCK AND GRAZING C0, LIMI'l‘ED.-Petn for the continuance of t
voluntary winding up, presented Agril 29, directed by Chitty, J ., to stand ov
until Saturday. May 21. Brandon, ssex st, Strand, solors for petners

E. L. PARR. & CO, LlM1TED.—P€tY1 to continue the voluntary winding up. pr
sented May 14. directed to be heard before Kay. J .. at the Royal Courts,
Thursday. May 26. Wooler, John st, Bedford row, agent for Morgan & Sco
Cardiff, solors for petner

‘ FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

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

nk,
lngleton, York. May 11
M, _ _ ;

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

LOCKE, IIENBY. King's Hill, Somerset, Shoemaker. J une 4. Benson 6: Car

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

SOLOMON, ROSE. Maida Vale. J une 17. Harvey-Samuel. Whittiilgton avcnllti
Leadeilhall st
TEMPLEMAN, Smlzon, York, Gent. July 11. Cobb, York

[ocr errors]

TUTILL, Gnonos. Upton, Essex, Regalia Manufacturer. June 1. Parkes,

[ocr errors]

n , Warm. JOHN DEANE, Manby, Lincoln, Clerk. June 1. Allisons & Allisons.

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