Page images

advantage of facilitating recourse would induce every transferee THE PAPERS to be read at the forthcoming meeting of the of papers to register, and when once the register became known, Incorporated Law Society promise to be of unusual interest. searches would be almost as plentiful as at Somerset House. The President will contribute an important paper on the exten

sion of the functions of the society, and the Land Transfer Bill

will be dealt with by Mr. John HUNTER, whose paper on that subSEVERAL QUESTIONS were raised in the discussion on the legality ject at the Liverpool Meeting in 1885 will be remembered as a of Father KELLER's imprisonment, but the real ground upon very able contribution to the literature of the subject. Mr. which the Court of Appeal in Dublin based its decision does not ÀLBERT SAUNDERS is also to discuss the question of land transfer. seem to have received much notice in the English accounts of the Mr. F. K. Munton will contribute some practical suggestions as to the trial. It appeared very clearly that the committal was not in any sittings of the Law Courts; and Mr. F. E. SAWYER, of Brighton, way for contempt of court, and so the general jurisdiction with an accomplished antiquarian scholar, will propose the preparation regard to contempt did not require to be considered. But by the by the society of a history of attorneys and solicitors. Mr. F. D. Irish Bankruptcy Act of 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 60) power is given LowNDES, of Liverpool, will deal with the question whether to the court to enforce answers to lawful questions by imprison- a successful litigant ought to be recouped by his opponent all his ment, and it was under this statutory power that Judge Boyd reasonable professional expenditure in obtaining or defending his proceeded. By section 385 it is enacted, inter alia, that if any rights. Among other papers of interest we observe one by Mr. person shall refuse to answer any lawful question put by the court, Bernard Wake, of Sheffield, on Newbould v. Smith (34 W. R. it shall be lawful for the court to commit such person to prison 690, 33 Ch. D. 127), with regard to which we may perhaps until he shall be willing to make full answers as required.

deviate so far from our usual practice as to say that the article Section 386 provides that the question need not be specified or set on the subject which appeared in our columns (ante, p. 228) should forth in the warrant, but it is sufficient to refer therein to the not be overlooked, representing as it did professional opinions of deposition remaining on the file of the proceedings, provided great weight. that the question in respect of which the warrant is made out is specified in the deposition so remaining on the file. THE NOW WELL-KNOWN CASE of Jenner - Fust v. Needham (34 From these sections it is clear that, in any case where W. R. 709, 32 Ch. D. 582) continues to exercise the judges. The the legality of the warrant is called in question, the actual decision, it will be remembered, is this—Where a receiver has deposition becomes of the greatest importance. This it is received rents of mortgaged property between the date of the which shews the question out of which the trouble has arisen; certificate under a foreclosure judgment and the day fixed for and from the general tenor of this it will be possible to shew redemption, the mortgagee is not entitled to the rents so received, whether the question is so irrelevant to the proceedings as not to except on the terms of bringing them into account as between be a lawful one. Hence it becomes of importance, too, that the mortgagee and mortgagor, and a fresh date must be fixed for deposition should be an exact record of the witness's answers. redemption. It is easy to see that the result of this decision, by But in Father KELLER’s case it appeared, as the Master of the prolonging the period allowed for redemption, may operate hardly Rolls remarked, that the deposition was neither taken by a sworn in cases of an insufficient security. Mr. Justice Chitty had the officer nor certified by the judge to be correct, nor—and this was case before him not long ago, when he said that it seemed to the most important of all-completed by the witness's signature, put an unnecessary expense on mortgagees. There is, however, which was essential to give validity to the document. Every little probability of Jenner-Fust v. Needham being overruled. facility ought to be given to enable the witness to explain or The point is not likely to be taken to the House of Lords, and, if correct what he had said, and until he had deliberately signed the the Court of Appeal has a similar case before it, the Lords deposition, or refused to do so—in which case, of course, different Justices will probably uphold their own decision. There is a considerations applied—it was impossible to make out a warrant rumour that it is in contemplation to meet the difficulty by under the statutory power of the Bankruptcy Act.

framing a new rule on the subject.

REFERRING to Sir EDWARD WATKIN's statement that the decision IN THE ABOVE CASE the court seems to have passed over the chief of Mr. Justice Kay in Tomkinson v. The South-Eastern Railway arguments put forward by counsel, and to have decide'l upon a Co. would be appealed against, we ventured to point out (ante, p. point which had received little consideration at the bar. It will 458) the hopelessness of an appeal from the order granting the hardly be so in the case of Mr. Bell-Cox, who also has just been interlocutory injunction. It now appears that the appeal is to be discharged from his imprisonment. The formal judgment of the withdrawn and the action is to be brought to trial, so that procourt has not yet been given, but it is unlikely that any stronger bably we shall ultimately have a decision of the highest tribunal on reasons will be found for it than those advanced by his counsel. the important question how far a statutory corporation is justified It seems to be clearly established that the writ de contumace in expending its funds on objects only indirectly conducive to the capiendo is only designed to enforce obedience to an order, and not purposes specified in its Act. to punish the delinquent for past acts of disobedience. So it was laid down by Lord DENMAN, C.J., in The Queen v. Thorogood (12 necessary or impossible to enforce obedience, the object of the writ to consider a Jubilee address to the Queen, which is an obvious

THERE is a story current about a supposed meeting of the judges fails, and the imprisonment ought to come an end. This is illus- adaptation to that event of an incident which we believe really trated by the cases of Hudson v. Tooth (2 P. D. 125) and Dean v. occurred with reference to another matter. When the address to was obtained during his imprisonment by a clergyman authorized tion by the judges, one very eminent judge of appeal objected to by the bishop, and Divine service was performed in a lawful the phrases Conscious as we are of our own shortcomings." " I interfere, and hence, as no further disobedience was apprehended, should not be so foolish as to say 50 %*, whereupon a learned Lord his release was ordered. In Mr. Green's case, while he was still in Justice blandly observed, « Suppose we say "Conscious as we are prison, his living became vacant under the Public Worship Regu- of each other's shortcomings.?" lation Act, the inhibition having remained in force more than three years. In these circumstances it was held that the inhibition had come to an end, being swallowed up in the larger punishment of ence to it, the imprisonment ought to come to an end equally. Incorporated Law Society to the banquets in the Central Hall will

We are requested to state that the entrance for members of the imprisoned for disobeying an order suspending him for six months Carey-street tranche carriages of members and others attending the the order is, therefore, at an end, and on the authority of the above and set de venterith the other threads towards Holborn, and take cases it is clear that the imprisonment must end also.

up in the opposite direction.

mined the judgment of the Scotch judges. In the case above BANKERS' MORTGAGES.

referred to a good deal depended upon the peculiar nature of the In the debate in the House of Lords on the second reading of the mortgages in question, which were by way of absolute disposition, Land Transfer Bill, Lord Selborne called attention to the question accompanied by a back bond-r.e., a condition of re-conveyance of registered charges for future advances, and pointed out that upon payment of the sum (in this case) at any time due from the clause 20 (clause 27 in the Amended Bill) was intended to over

disponor to the disponee. At first sight this seems exactly like an rule their lordships' decision in Hopkinson v. Rolt (9 H. L. C. recognizes heritable securities which are properly charges upon the

English mortgage, but there is a distinction. The Scotch law 524). The matter is one which, as is well known, chiefly affects land, and which do not divest the owner of his title. But the bankers, and it is noteworthy that it has been quite recently dis- security in question is one of recent introduction, devised in order cussed in the Scotch case of Union Bank of Scotland v. National to evade the law, and it is apparently treated very much as an Bank of Scotland (12 App. Cas. 53). The result was to uphold English mortgage was before equity interfered. Hence a majority emphatically the rule in Hopkinson v. Rolt, and Lord Halsbury, of the judges held that the first bank, having the absolute propC., commented upon the obtaining of further advances from the erty in the land, had a right to retain it as security for all sums at National Bank after notice of a second mortgage to the Union any time owing by the mortgagor, and that the second bank could Bank in the following terms : “ It seems to me that such a pro- only take the same personal right which the mortgagor had- viz., ceeding is contrary to good faith, and the decision of your lord; the right to a re-conveyance upon payment of all moneys owing by ship's House in Hopkinson v. Rolt establishes the principle, and the mortgagor at the time of demand. This was the opinion of establishes it upon the broadest grounds of natural justice.” eight judges, and it is to be noticed that they distinctly refused to Nevertheless, it is now proposed to upset the principle so far as regards registered charges, and this is to be done, as Lord difference between securities of this kind and the ordinary English

be guided by Hopkinson v. Rolt, on the ground of the fundamental Selborne informs us, for the convenience of bankers. The clause in question (in its amended form) is as follows :

mortgage. But there was an important minority. It was held by

five judges that the security, whatever it might be in form, was in “Where a registered charge of a specified sum is expressed to be reality a charge only, and that the mortgagor retained a valuable created on any land for the purpose of securing (whether with or without interest in the land, which could be charged in favour of a second present advances) future advances to an amount not exceeding that sum, mortgagee, and that after notice of such second charge the first the registered proprietor of the charge shall be entitled in priority to subsequent charge or transfer to the payment of any sum due to him in mortgagee would make any further advances at his own risk. They respect of advances up to the full amount of the specified sum, notwith- held the principle of Hopkinson v. Rolt to be as applicable to standing that some of such future advances have been advanced after Scotch law as to English, and in addition to the considerations the date and with notice of the subsequent charge or transfer.”

which we have already noticed, a new and very striking one was The apparent discrepancy between this provision and the reasons adduced by Lord Shand, which seems 80 apposite as to merit which have hitherto decided the law seem to make it worth while quotation (p. 83) :to attempt a brief examination of the subject. The rule in “Suppose that after a certain amount had been advanced by the Hopkinson v. Rolt was not established without considerable dis- National Bank (the first mortgagee], a creditor of Mrs. McArthur (the cussion. In the judgment appealed against Lord Chelmsford had mortgagor] had by diligence attached her reversionary right in the propstated the matter as follows:-“ A prior mortgage for present and erty or its proceeds ; could that bank possibly, in disregard of the dili. future advances ; a subsequent mortgage of the same description; on her account, which would affect, and even sweep away, the reversion, each mortgagee has notice of the other's deeds; advances are made and so defeat the diligence; and could it really be said that they had such by the prior mortgagee after the date of the subsequent mortgage a right in order that they might earn banker's profits under their with full knowledge of it; is the prior mortgagee entitled to agreement with Mrs. McArthur ? priority for these advances over the antecedent advances made by argument that a creditor’s diligence could not be so defeated." the subsequent mortgagee ?” In answering this question the great

When this case came before the House of Lords it was, as we difficulty was to get over the old case of Gordon v. Graham | have already stated, decided against the bank which was the first (2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 598, pl. 16). There Lord Cowper, C., is re- mortgagee, on the principle of Hopkinson v. Rolt, and in two of ported to have said :-"The second mortgagee shall not redeem the judgments that principle was stated to be founded upon the first mortgage without paying as well the money lent after as

natural justice. We seem to have here an instance of judge-made that lent before the second mortgage was made ; for it was the and judge-confirmed law which has been the subject of no felly of the second mortgagee with notice to take such security." ordinary consideration. When such law is overruled by the Legisadvised not to act upon it for fear the court should impute fraud selves bound to follow time-honoured precedents with which they to them rather than folly to the second mortgagee, and it was did not themselves agree. But in this case special pains had been shaken by the remarks of Lord St. Leonards in Blunden v. Desart already taken to overrule the time-honoured precedent, and a (2 Dr. & W.405) and Shaw v. Neale (6 H. L. C. 581). In the modern rule had been settled with general approval. Possibly case in question Lord Cranworth, indeed, chose to be guided by it;

the convenience of bankers may be entitled to great consideration, but, after a minute examination of the records, Lord Campbell, but we may at least expect eminent legislators to consider also the C. decided that it must have been wrongly reported, and both principles of law which they have themselves, in their judicial he and Lord Chelmsford held that it must in any case be overruled. capacity, so recently approved. They were much influenced by the reason urged in Fisher on

On the point of registration it may be well to refer to the case Mortgages (1st ed. 363 ; 4th ed. 570), that it is contrary to the of Bradford Banking Co. v. Briggs (12 App. Cas. 29). There the general principles of equity that a mortgagee should, by taking a first charge was, in fact, registered, for it was created by the security for advances which may never be made, put a pressure articles of association of a company registered under the Companies from other persons ; the first mortgagee being never bound by such available at law and in equity, upon every share for all debts due And it was pointed out that the hardship upon the banker at once security to a bank, with notice of the transaction to the company, cenished upon considering that the security of the first mortgage it was held that the principle of Hopkinson v. Rolt applied, and could not be impaired without notice of the second. It is impor. that, in spite of the articles of association, the company had no tant to remark that the law as thus established applies when ach claim in priority to the bank for debts contracted after such party has notice of the other's security, and, indeed, requires that


In the interest of legal consistency it seems proper to urge that and more general way of giving notice, and the mere fact that's the clause of the Land Transfer Bill in question should not become charge is registered does not seem to introduce any new considera- law without full consideration. tion to weigh against those upon which the present rule is founded. But, as we have already remarked, it has quite recently received

The Times announces the death of Mr. F. J. Maltby, solicitor, for many override the technical difficulties of Scotch law which had deter- 5 years British Vice-Consul at Brussels

It seems to me too clear for



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

under the old rule of section 49 of the Act of 1875, to oust (if any) owing to whose forgery or fraud the error complained

even the owner of the legal estate. Among the disabilities in THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND TRANSFER BILL. clause 2 (a.), attending neglect to register, taking any benefit

from the land” was originally included. The precise effect I.

which these words would have had was not very clear; they THE Land Transfer Bill, as presented in amended form to the have now been removed. In other respects the list of penalties Committee of the House of Lords on the 17th inst., is a very remains unaltered; we discussed their effect, ante, p. 375 (a.). A different and much more complete document than it originally was. proviso is now added to the clause, exonerating the grantor from It has been partly re-arranged, many minor gaps and omissions the duty of registering previously to sales (a.) under the Lands have been filled up, even mere verbal improvements have not been Clauses Acts, (6.) in execution of judgments and processes, (c.) by considered unworthy of insertion, and some solid alterations in its mortgagees alone—and in other cases where the grantor is not a substantive provisions have also been made. By these means the party to the conveyance. In cases (a.) and (6.) the board is Bill has been considerably lengthened; it now consists of sixty-directed to register the new proprietor in manner to be prescribed nine clauses, instead of fifty-seven, and covers thirty-four pages, by rules, and subject to an appeal to the court by persons aggrieved instead of twenty-six.

(new clause 7). As an instance of re-arrangement, we notice that the old clause Under the heading “Compulsory Registration " there are also 6, vesting land in personal representatives on death, which had been included provisions as to the classes of persons entitled to placed in “Part II., Compulsory Registration," in the original apply for first registration, also as to the registration of Bill, now appears, considerably filled out with needful detail, under settled land, and for new registrations on defeasances. On its proper title in “Part IV., Amendments of Law of Real these we observe that the amended clause 5 provides that Property (new clause 38). Some of the excisions for the tenants for life shall be registered as proprietors, with an purpose of these re-arrangements are a little alarming at first appropriate addition — not the trustees, as before provided — sight, until the omitted portions are seen to re-appear elsewhere, the trustees of the settlement being also entered under an or to be otherwise provided for—for instance, the (old) clause appropriate heading. The present registry practice in these cases 9 (3), requiring the applicants for confirmation of boundaries to

seems a good one, and will possibly be continued under this enactpay the reasonable costs of objectors—an obviously proper rule, ment—it is, to register the tenant for life as proprietor simply, and though one likely to diminish the numbers of such applications to place "a restriction” on all dealings, requiring that the -is struck out in the amendments. Its place is really supplied, purchase-money be paid to the trustees (naming them). The same however, by (old) clause 29 (9).

clause provides that the trustees shall cause the new proprietor to We do not propose to lay before our readers an exact summary be registered when the tenant for life dies; it does not appear of the amendments. We would do something less, and, we hope, from what source the necessary funds are to be provided in something more than that. The amendments are so numerous, and, cases where (as often happens) “the trustees” have no property in many instances, so minute, that it would be impossible to men- vested in them. The new clause 5 (6) also enables land already tion them all, or nearly all, short of a reprint of the Bill, and, settled to be registered without the express appointment of trustees unless some commentary were added, nothing would be gained of the settlement, which would probably have been necessary as when it was done ; while to add a discussion to such a work would the Bill originally stood. occupy more space than we can devote to the subject. We pro

2. Confirmation.—The alterations and improvements in these pose to review the points (which are not many) in which the three sections are very numerous, but only one or two of them make leading novel features of the Bill with regard to land transfer any inroad upon the general policy of the Bill. An application proper-namely, compulsion, confirmations, and insurance—are for confirmation can be carried on (under new clause 13 (6)) by modified by the amendments'; then to note its further effects on any successor in title of the original applicant, not only (as in the registration generally and on the law of real property, and finally old clause 10 (6)) in cases of death. Unborn persons are (new to offer observations on portions of it which seem to affect solicitors clause 15 (2)) added to the list of incapacitated persons on whose in particular.

behalf petitions against confirmations may be presented; and

married women are removed from it. Power is also given to the (1) Compulsion.A correspondent had already pointed out to board to confirm titles, subject to qualifications, which will us that the language of the first paragraph of clause 2 of the doubtless be useful (new clause 16). Confirmation of boundaries original Bill, providing that after a certain date “land transfer was to be compulsory, and that thenceforth it should be the duty confined (as by old clause 14 (2)) to the case where the adjoining

by consent of neighbours is extended to all cases, instead of being of "every person” before selling, &c., to be registered, seem to neighbour was also registered. imply a more permanent kind of compulsion than we, in our notice (ante, p, 375 (d.)), had deduced from the words of the tion is introduced. It will be remembered that section 21 of the

Under new clause 19, however, a really most important alteraBill. În our original view we had relied principally on the open- Land Transfer Act of 1875 runs as follows :-"A title to any

land ing words of sub-clauses (a.) and (6.), "until a proprietor,” &c., adverse to, or in derogation of the title of, the registered proma coupled with the fact that section 49 of the Act of 1875 (allowing prietor, shall not be acquired by any length of possession.". This the legal estate to pass by unregistered deed) remained unrepealed Pule has been the subject of much criticism, and has been shewn to -provisions which are hardly consistent with a very strict 'inter- be both inexpedient and unjust–inexpedient, because it interferes intention of the Legislature is to be made plainer ; (new) aries ; unjust, as helping the “* dormient” at the expense of the clause 9 provides that :

"vigilant” owner.

To remedy these defects, the new clause 19 shall enable any legal estate or interest in any registered land or charge registered description of the property in all cases where the

“Nothing in section forty-nine or any other part of the principal Act enables the board, subject to an appeal to the court, to rectify the to be conferred otherwise than by a registered disposition.”

registered owner has lost possession, and would not, under the Beyond declaring the mind of the Legislature, however, this ordinary law, be entitled to recover it. addition does not much alter the case, for the following reasons : Under the provisions of the principal Act referred to, an un tion with the insurance system, on nearly all of which the amend.

3. Insurance.—There are several points of interest in connecregistered purchaser got the legal estate, obtained power to pro- ments have some bearing. The occasions of payment of insurance be ousted by a subsequent registered disposition ; under the present absolute or qualified (but not possessory) title, or on confirmation provision he will only get an equitable estate, but this, while it of title, and on every subsequent dealing for value, save that it is protect himself by caution, and as to being ousted by destruction occurs within three months of first registration with absoluter her of his estate, his chances of that are no more and no less than it qualified title, or confirmation, no insurance fee shall be paid before estate, no one else can have one'either, except by being registered alaiming compensation out of the mound, the claimant must have - in other words, by exactly the same means "As suticed before, attacked the person liable to pay the same "—that is, the perinea



of was made. This is the rule under the Torrens system, required much of the applicants for admission, and the want of any but its expediency is more than doubtful, and, if the new proper test of legal knowledge was, no doubt, one of the principal provision stood alone, it would probably not be altogether satis- reasons which influenced the public against allowing to the profession factory to claimants, as it would involve them in the risks of a

its proper rank and influence. The Lay Society was instituted in preliminary action, against a very unsatisfactory defendant usually, and in 1836 it induced the judges to order that all persons seeking to

1825. In 1833 it established a course of lectures for law students, before approaching the fund. But schedule 1 (I.) gives the board become solicitors should, before admission, pass an examination in power to "award compensation out of the insurance fund in the legal knowledge. In 1843 the Solicitors Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73) was first instance, and to determine whether a right to compensation passed, under which the Law Society was appointed the registrar of from the insurance fund has arisen.” This power, if we interpret attorneys and solicitors, and since that time—in fact, since 1836—they it rightly, will enable applications to be made direct to the board, have conducted the examinations, until 1877 nominally under the who, it would appear, must have large powers of admitting claims. supervision of the judges. In 1877 the power of making rules for, It would seem desirable, however, that, on so important a point, and conducting the examinations, previously vested in the judges, the language of the enactment should be made a little clearer.

was transferred to the Incorporated Law Society, which has since On another point which was slightly ambiguous in the original praise is due to those members of the council (all of them busy men)

that date performed the duty in a very satisfactory manner, and great Bill, the amendments introduce a satisfactory clearness. Under who, without fee or reward, act as examiners. the old clause 16 and schedule 1 (A.), which provided that persons At present there are two offices where practically the same functions “deprived of registered land” by registry errors might apply for are performed - viz., the Law Society and the Petty Bag Office. For its restoration in specie, it was not quite clear whether, if an instance, all articles of clerkship have to be enrolled at the Petty error occurred on a first registration, the true owner would have come Bag Office, and they have afterwards to be registered at the Law within the definition “ deprived of registered land”; and if he did Society, If an articled clerk requires an order for any purpose, he not, it seemed as if in those cases he would be forced to content must take out a summons at the Petty Bag Office, and a copy of this himself with money compensation out of the fund. The new tion is based, must be left at the Law Society. A roll of solicitors is

summons, together with a copy of the affidavit on which the applicaclause 21 (1) and schedule 1 (A.) (2) have been framed so as to kept at the Petty Bag Office, and another at the Law Society. The give to such persons, in common with persons deprived of land by latter shews who are entitled to practise, but the former does not, and mistakes in subsequent registered dealings, the same right to is, therefore, of no practical utility. apply for restoration as was undoubtedly given to registered We would suggest that the Petty Bag Office, which only exists for proprietors.

the purposes mentioned and other minor matters of a kindred The Lord Chancellor (schedule 1 (J.)), with the approval of the character, should be abolished, and that the powers now vested in Treasury, may from time to time apply the insurance fund to any being, of course, made for the protection of vested interests, but, as

that office should be transferred to the Law Society, due provision matters of which notice may be entered on the register under to this, it is believed that there would be no practical difficulty. section 18 of the Land Transfer Act-for instance, rights of way, Under the Judicature Officers Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 78), s. 14, rights of common, easements, rights to mines and minerals, succes- the Petty Bag Office will be abolished on the next vacancy, but there sion duty, land tax, and short leases incapable of registration, seems to be no sufficient reason why this contingency should be &c.—or which may be entered in subsidiary registers under the waited for. present enactment.

Another suggestion which has been made, and deserves consideration, is that all solicitors should be compelled by statute to be members of the Law Society. At present only about 5,000 out of the 13,000 who take out their certificates annually belong to the

Law Society, and the consequence is that the society has a limited THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW SOCIETY OVER Barristers are subject to the jurisdiction of the Inn of Courts to

jurisdiction over its own members, but none over the remainder. SOLICITORS.

which they belong, each of which has the power, on sufficient cause From the earliest period in legal history until a comparatively recent being shewn, to suspend a barrister from practising or to disbar him date the duty of inquiring into the fitness and capacity of solicitors altogether, as has been done on more than one occasion. In some of rested with the judges. In them was also vested the power of ad- the colonies there are Law Societies of which all barristers and mitting solicitors and removing from the roll such of them as were members, and it is believed that the system is found to work very

solicitors practising in the Colony are bound by statute to become deemed to be unfit to practise.

As early as the year 1292 Edward I., with the sanction of Parlia- well. ment, issued a commission, which was addressed to the Chief Justice

At all events, having regard to the fact that the Law Society has of the Court of Common Pleas, John de Mettingham, authorizing complete jurisdiction as to who are fit persons to enter the profesand appoint from every county a certain number of attorneys to mission, but it should also have the power of exclusion, subject, of practise in the courts, and a certain number of pupils to study the course, to appeal. This would effect a considerable saving of the that 140 attorneys might suffice for the purpose in view, but power these cases come, and of the masters to whom they are often referred. thus chosen, and those only, should attend the courts and conduct the regard to the training, examination, admission, and punishment of their wisdom might see fit; and it was declared that the persons to be trating in one body all the functions necessary to be exercised with he has only persons spoken of as constituting the legal profession are solicitors and the public. We see no practical difficulty in the way of and students who were the subjects of its adco bar is mentioned torneys steps will be taken for obtaining the legislative sanction necessary true that there were serjeants in those days, but they were very few,

for the purpose. and confined themselves to one tribunal. In the time of which we speak the duty of advocate was performed by the attorneys, and it seems that for some centuries after the profession had what may be termed a legal origin that attorneys were also the advocates. When, however, we arrived at a comparative state of civilization, these It is stated that the costs of the Campbell divorce trial amount to more functions were severed, and what we now call the bar came into than £20,000. mentioned the attorneys and apprentices chosen by the justices were Very shortly after the issuing of the commission

On Wednesday Mr. Justice Stirling stated that he had directed a Located in the Inns of Chancery. From what we have stated it will medical Life Assurance Association to be at the head of the paper intrusted the power of determining who were fit to practise in the intended for commence taking causes wầth witnesses on Tuesday, June 14. We will not weary our readers with an account of the Acts of Assizes :_012., Western Circuit, Lord Coleridge, Č.J., and Cave, Jii

The following are the circuits chosen by the judges for the Summer Rules of Court which were made for regulating the examination and South, East Midland": Circuit, "Hawkins and Grantham, JJ.Home Parliament, about seventy in number, which were passed, and the South Eastern Circuite, Grove, t, Oxford Circuit, Huddleston, B., aná

ission of attorneys ; suffice it to say that as wn to the year 1836 Curcuit, "Cavem illam norine Wales Circuit, *Denman, Tan South Wales As far as regards examination, the judges do not appear to have North-Eastern Circuit, Manisty and Mathew, JJ.

[ocr errors]



LEVER v. GOODWIN.-0. A. No. 2, 25th May.
[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]


ACCOUNT OF PROFITS. Sir,- I ask a little space in your journal to call attention to the provisions of this Bill, which has passed the House of Commons This action was brought by manufacturers of soap to restrain the entirely without discussion.

defendants, who were also manufacturers of soap, from selling their soap It enacts, in language taken verbatim from the Thellusson Act, that in such a way as to pass it off as the plaintiffs' soap. The defendants dià no person shall, after the 1st of January, 1888, settle or dispose of it retail to the public. The retail dealers knew that they were not buying

not sell their soap retail, but they sold it to retail dealers, who then sold any property in such manner that the income thereof shall be wholly the plaintiffs soap. At the trial Chitty, J., granted an injunction or partially accumulated for any longer period than the minority or restraining the defendants from selling any soap not being manufactured respective minorities only of any person or persons who, under the by the plaintiffs in the wrapper and of the form of any one of three uses or trusts of the instrument directing such accumulations, would specified exhibits which were admitted to have been issued by the defen. for the time being, if of full age, be entitled to receive the income so dants, or in any wrapper or in any form calculated or intended to pass directed to be accumulated."

off, or to enable others to pass off, as and for the goods of the plaintiffs. Without denying that cases may and do occur (see Havelock v. And it was ordered that an account should be taken of the profits made Havelock, 17 Ch. D. 807) in which accumulations to an unreasonable by the defendants in selling soap made by them in any wrapper such as extent are directed, an inquiry among members of the profession well

that contained in the three specified exhibits, and in the form of those able to form an opinion has shewn that such cases are very un

exhibits, and that the defendants should pay to the plaintiffs the amount

The defendants common; it therefore becomes desirable to consider whether the Bill found due to them on the taking of the account.

eir behalf that, even the injunction as prepared does not interfere with dispositions of property which appealed, and it was argued on

was properly granted, the account of profits directed was too extensive. are not injurious and which ought not to be prohibited.

It was contended that the defendants were accountable for profits only in There is a not uncommon desire among testators in all classes of cases in which the ultimate purchaser of the soap believed that he was society that the vesting of legacies with the interest thereon should be buying the plaintiffs' soap, and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were bound to postponed for some few years after the legatee attains his majority, shew in each case that the ultimate purchaser had been deceived, or that bay until he attains twenty-five. The object of this desire is not so at any rate the dofendants were entitled to shew, in any case in which much to increase the magnitude of the legacy by means of accumu- they could do so, that the ultimate purchaser had not been deceived. lations as to postpone the enjoyment of it until the legatee attains THE COURT OF APPEAL held that the injunction had been properly years of discretion - an object which, in many cases, is most desir- granted, and also that the account of profits directed was in the proper able.

form. Cotton, L.J., was of opinion that the defendants had intentionally The operation of the Bill on a gift to a person contingently on his got up their soap in such a way as would lead incautious purchasers to attaining twenty-five, accompanied either with an express or implied believe it to be the plaintiffs' soap. As to the other point the complaint direction to accumulate the income for the benefit of the legatee, against the defendants was that they had dressed up their soap in such a would appear to be that the gift of the capital would stand, but the way as to enable the middlemen to sell it as the plaintiffs'. The whole direction for accumulation would be wholly void, inasmuch as there gist of the complaint was that the defendants had sold a weapon which is no person who would for the time being, if of full age, be entitled had made was made by the sales to the middlemen, and it was immaterial

was capable of being used fraudently. The profits which the defendants to receive the income. Again, the Bill would render invalid a direction for accumulation Whatever they did with it the sale by the defendants to them was a wrong;

to the plaintiffs what the middlemen did with the soap afterwards. for a fixed period however short, say, for four or five years-a ful act, because it put into their hands the means of selling the defendants' direction which was contained in the will of the late Mr. Atkinson soap as the plaintiffs'. Lindley and Bowen, L.JJ., concurred.--Counsel, Morley, and without which it is not probable that his large fortune Aston, Q.2, and Chadwyck Healey ; Romer, Q.C., Lockwood, Q.C., and J. would have sufficed to build and maintain the magnificent Con- Cutler. Counsel, Emmet, Son, $ Stubbs ; J. S. Salaman. valescent Hospital at Wimbledon which bears his name.

I venture to think that in the two instances I have named the BLAKE » MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF LONDON.-C. A. No. 1, existing law ought not to be interfered with. At any rate, it is to be

May 23. hoped that the Bill will not pass the House of Lords without full Property Tax-ASSESSMENT OF Public School-CHARITABLE INSTITUTION consideration.


-5 & 6 Vict., c. 35, s. 61, R. 6. P.S.-It is, I think, open to question whether the Bill applies to wills executed before the 1st of January, 1888—it would be well to and Hawkins, JJ.), reported 35 W. R. 212, 18 Q. B. D. 437. The premises

This was an appeal from the decision of a divisional court (Denman make this point more clear.

occupied by the City of London School having been assessed in the valua[The Bill was, we believe, suggested by the remarks of the late tion list of the parish of St. Bride, at a rateable value of £1,667, and a Mr. Justice Pearson in Re Alford, Damanť v. Hennell (34 W. R. 773). gross value of £2,000, the Corporation of the City of London appealed, -ED. S. J.]

claiming allowances in respect of property tax under 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35, s. 61, r. 6, by which allowances are to be made, inter alia, for the duties

charged on any college or hall in any of the universities of Great Britain, A CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY.

in respect of the public buildings and offices belonging thereto, and on [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

any hospital, public school, or almshouse in respect of the public buildings,

offices, and premises belonging thereto. The City of London School was Sir,—The distance of the Incorporated Law Society's hall from the founded by a private Act (4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 35) obtained by the corCity makes that institution almost valueless as a library to solicitors poration of London in 1834, by which it was enacted that the corporation practising in the vicinity of the Mansion House and further East, should make an annual payment of £900 towards the support of the and I have long felt that a library could, with great advantage, be school, and should maintain formed in the City, where text-books and law reports might be con

ated by the Act, a school for the religious and virtuous education of boys. By sulted.

the City of London School Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. lxiii.), the corporation The idea is capable of expansion. A Solicitors' Society might be

were empowered to appropriate certain lands on the Victoria Embankment, formed in connection with the library, whose objects should be to premises, and there maintain it'in like manner as they were authorized to strengthen the hands of the Incorporated Law Society in matters maintain it on the old premises. The corporation accordingly built on relating to the profession (especially that of the reduction of the annual certificate duty), to hold meetings for discussion of points are educated.

the land in question the present schools, in which a large number of boys

No proñt is made, or sought, by the corporation in of practice or etiquette, and to form a kind of Solicitors' Exchange, carrying on the school, but there is a yearly deficiency, which is made ea

The few City solicitors to whom I have mentioned the matter by the parent and by some members of the corporation, who are, hower cons appear to think that such a society would meet with support, and if unlimited as to the number of recommendations they may sign. The com. any of your readers are of that opinion, and are prepared to co

of freemen and householders of the city have preference in admission, operate with me in setting it on foot, I shall be glad to hear from

£15 15s. after that age. The Income Tax Commissioners held that the HERBERT M. Low.

the opinion of the Divisional Court, who upheld their decision. The surveyor of taxes appealed, contending that the exemption was only meant that this was shewn by their collocation in the Act with hospitals and

to apply to public schools, which were purely charitable institutions, and The Daily News says that a consignment of eight large turtles which almshouses. were on view on Wednesday in the basement of the Law Courts, near the

The Court (Lord Esher, M.R., Fry and Lopes, L.JJ.) affirmed the These strange guests are to be sacrificed and converted into a soupin tertenta degi tighaustive definition Committee teen public school as used by the rest banquets of the Incorporated Law Society.

but that where in school had a public foundation, and a portion of its

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »