« PreviousContinue »
(17 Q. B. D. 244). The creditors resolved to accept a second scheme, ROB v. ROB-Stirling, J., 20th May.
which the registrar again refused to approve, his decision being again R. S. C., 1883, L., 1 (A.)-SPEEDY TRIAL OF ACTION.
affirmed by the Court of Appeal on the 25th of March, 1887. The court In this action the plaintiff claimed an injunction to restrain the defend- refused to allow another meeting of the creditors to be summoned for the
On the 29th of April the official ant from entering upon certain lands at Skipton, in Yorkshire, and if receiver applied to the registrar for an adjudication of bankruptcy against necessary specific performance by him of an alleged agreement for a
the debtors. At the request of the debtors and some of the creditors the tenancy thereof contained in correspondence, and be now moved for an
registrar adjourned thē hearing of the application to the 1st of July. interim injunction in the terms of the writ. The only question in dispute
The official receiver appealed, and on the hearing of the appeal the was whether the correspondence constituted a complete contract or
respondents objected that the official receiver had no locus standi, that he whether it was merely negotiation, and it was admitted that if there was a contract it was for a tenancy from year to year. No pleadings had yet was not a person aggrieved” by the registrar's order within the meaning been delivered.
THE COURT OF APPEAL (Lord ESHER, M.R., and Fry and LOPES, L.JJ.) STIRLING, J., said that this was a case in which he was disposed to apply ord. 50, r. 1 (a.), and direct a speedy trial of the action. Counsel held (Fry, L.J., dissenting) that in such a case the official receiver was stated that such an order would be satisfactory to all parties, and his entitled to appeal. Lord Esher, M.R., said the order which the registrar lordship accordingly directed that the trial should take place at the next
was asked to make was one which, if the facts alleged were made out, he York Assizes, and in the meanwhile granted the injunction.- COUNSEL,
was bound judicially to make, unless he was entitled for "sufficient Methold; Warrington, SOLICITORS, Jackson, Morse, f Simpson, for Jackson reason” to adjourn the hearing: Section 20 provided that “the court Jackson, Middlesborough; Bell, Brodrick, & Co., for Richardson, Thirsk.
shall” (not may) adjudge the debtor bankrupt if certain circumstances
were proved. If no "sufficient reason" to the contrary were proved, the COURTNEY v. COLE-Q. B. Div., 19th May.
registrar would do a legal wrong in his judicial office if, on those cir. COMPULSORY PILOTAGE – TRADING TO NORTH OF EUROPE MERCHANT
cumstances being proved, he did not adjudge the debtors forth with SHIPPING Act, 1854, s. 379.
bankrupt. The official receiver had alleged that the scheme had not been
approved within fourteen days, and had asked the registrar forth with to In this case the appellant, who was the master of the ship Cardiganshire, adjudge the debtors bankrupt. If he proved that that was so, and that had been convicted by justices of unlawfully piloting his ship within the there was no sufficient reason for adjourning the hearing, the registrar London district without having a pilotage certificate. The ship was one was bound forth with to adjudicate the debtors bankrupt. Under rule of a line of steamers which sail regularly from London to Japan, China, 191 the official receiver was a party who was bound to ask the court for a and the Straits Settlements, and back to London, and thence to Amster- judicial decision on a matter of fact which might be in contest. It was dam and Hamburg and back to London. In April, 1886, she arrived in his duty to produce evidence and to argue on the effect of that evidence. London with a cargo from the East, and, having discharged part of the That placed him in exactly the same position as a litigant, and the cargo, she left London for Amsterdam with the rest of the cargo. When question was whether he was entitled to appeal as a “person aggrieved" she was off Gravesend the informant, who was a duly licensed pilot, by the refusal of his application. In Ex parte Sidebotham (14 Ch. D. 458) offered to take charge of the ship for the purpose of piloting her to James, L.J., said (p. 465): “A person aggrieved' must be a man who the seaward limits of the London district. The appellant refused has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been the offer, and continued to pilot the ship himself. The vessel proceeded to pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrong. Amsterdam and Hamburg, and, after discharging her cargo, took in a fully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to some: fresh part cargo for the East, with which she returned to London, and thing." That might not be an exhaustive definition, but, at any rate, it then, after making her cargo complete, she proceeded on her next voyage would include a person like the official receiver in this case, who had been to China and Japan. The question was whether, under the above circum- wrongfully refused a decision for which he had a right to ask. And in stances, the ship was exempt from compulsory pilotage under section 379 the same case Bramwell, L.J., said, “Certainly the general rule is that an of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. That section, in its 3rd sub-section, appeal must be by the party who has endeavoured to maintain the con. exempts all ships not carrying passengers and trading to Boulogne or to trary of that which has taken place.” That also included the present any place in Europe north of Boulogne. On behalf of the appellant it case. Fry, L.J., regretted that he differed from the Master of the Rolls. was argued that the ship was not less a ship trading to the north of Europe The official' receiver was not a litigant, but was acting as an officer of the because she afterwards went to China and Japan. On behalf of the respond- court whose duty it was to bring facts to the knowledge of the court, and, ent it was argued that trading meant constantly trading, and here the vessel when he had done so, he had discharged the whole of the duty cast on was a foreign-going ship, London being only her calling port ; and him as a public servant ; he was functus officio, and had no further duty to reliance was laid on The Agricola, 2 W. Rob. Adm. 10, and The Sea Qucen perform, and, whether' his application succeeded or failed, he had no B. & L. 359.
further concern in the matter. He was not in any sense & person THE COURT (Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., and A. L. Smith, J.) after taking aggrieved” by the refusal of his appliction, for the decision was not any time to consider their judgment, allowed the appeal. 'Lord COLERIDGE, more a decision against him than against any other member of the public. C.J., said that it was obvious that the case was directly within the words He suffered no legal grievance if the registrar had given a wrong deci; of the exemption given by sub-section 3. It had, however, been argued sion. that compulsory pilotage had been imposed by the Legislature solely for decision, and, therefore, he could not appeal. In his lordship's opinion
He was deprived of nothing and he was refused nothing by that the benefit of ships themselves and the protection of human life, and that the section ought to be construed with reference to that principle. But parte Sidebotham.
this view was consistent with the definition given by James, L J., in Ex he thought it was impossible to say, looking at all the exemptions, that they quâ non to an appeal; he did not say that everyone who had maintained
And Bramwell, L.J., only mentioned a condition sine were designed solely with that purpose, and without any idea of favouring the contrary" had a right to appeal. Lopes, L.J., agreed with the Master particular trades. For instance, the effect of sub-section 4 was that ships of the Rolls. from Guernsey, Jersey, &c., laden with stone were exempt, but if laden with fruit they were not exempt. It was clear that there must have been Court reversed the decision of the registrar,' and made an immediate
The appeal was then heard on its merits, and in the result Tue an intention to favour the stone trade between those islands and England. adjudication against the debtors.--COUNSEL, śir R. Webster, A.G., Siret It was not necessary to decide whether the Legislature intended to favour Clarke, S.G., and Muir Mackenzie ; Finlay, Q.c., and Sidney Woolf; Herbert trading between London and the north of Europe. It may have been so ; but it was enough to say that this vessel was a ship trading between
Reed; Wilkinson. SOLICITORS, Solicitor to the Board of Trade ; Foss & LedLondon and Amsterdam, a place in Europe north of Boulogne, and doing
sam ; G. S. $ H. Brandon ; Cuddon g Co. that habitually, though his lordship thought that it was not necessary that she should be habitually so trading. The case came within sub-section
Ex parte TODD, Re ASHCROFT-O. A. No. 1, 20th May. 3, and the vessel was exempt. A. L. SMITH, J., said that the question
BANKRUPTCY-AVOIDANCE OF VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENTS-RETROSPECTIVE was whether the ship was trading to a port north of Boulogne within the
EFFECT OF ACT-"TRANSFER OF PROPERTY "-BANKRUPTCY Act, 1883, meaning of sub-section 3. Dr. Lushington had decided that “coasting"
ss. 47, 168—BANKRUPTCY Act, 1869, s. 91. in sub-section 1 meant continually coasting. But that decision did not govern sub-section 3, which meant what it said-viz., that a vessel, when
Section 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, provides, by sub-section 1, it is trading to a port north of Boulogne, is exempt. — Counsel, Gains
that any voluntary settlement (not being a settlement made on or for the ford Bruce, &.c., and James Fox ; Bucknell, Q.C., and Aspinall. SOLICITORS, marriage in right of his wife) shall, if the settlor becomes bankrupte
wife or children of the settlor of property which has accrued to him after Parker, Garrett, g Parker ; Sandilands, Ilumphry, f Co.
within two years after the date of the settlement, be void as against the trustee in the bankruptcy, and shall, if the settlor becomes bankrupt at
any subsequent time within ten years after the date of the settlement, be BANKRUPTCY CASES.
void against the trustee in the bankruptcy, unless the parties claiming Ex parte THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, Re REED, BOWEN, & CO.
under the settlement can prove that the settlor was at the time of making
the settlement able to pay all his debts without the aid of the property Appear—Locvs Srande-OrFICIAL RECEIVER-APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICA-cerong pria dan sede e content of auch beteloment on the execution there is "section,
TIENT OF BANKRUPTCY=BANKKUPTOR CA.CF, 7883, 1462 70, 164, 165, 1094 bytes une petiches, the settlements shala, for the purposes of this sections BANKRUPTCY RULES, 1886, R. 191.
The question in this case was whether the official receiver was entitled Bankruptcy Act, 1869, was identical with sub-section 1, except that it here tion - 20 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1885, for an adjudication underbank : placed in italic.rs Section 16% of the Act of 1883 repeals the act of Latin In the present case a receiving order was made against the debtor, and liability or disqualification incurred under the repealed Act." approve the schement, and his decision was timed on the stunt refused to be on the case or partigi, by prohicho, ale trecitalo that he was absolutely
entitled to eighty shares in a railway company, and that he was desirous in the general saving clause (section 169) of the Act of 1883. LOPES, L.J., of irrevocably settling them upon the trusts thereinafter declared for the agreed with the Master of the Rolls.-COUNSEL, Vinslow, Q.C., and benefit of his wife, himself, and his children, and that he was about to Sidney Woolf ; Yate Lee. SOLICITORS, Munns & Longden; Bedford, Moniertransfer the shares into the names of T. and M., who were parties to the Williams, & Robinson. deed, it was agreed that the trustees should stand possessed of the shares, so soon as the same should be transferred to them, on trust to pay the dividends to the wife during her life, for her separate use without power
CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS. of anticipation, and after her death upon certain trusts for the benefit of the settlor and the issue of the marriage. At the time of the execution
Re HILLEARY & TAYLOR-C. A. No. 2, 20th May. of the deed the shares stood in the name of the settlor. On its execution SOLICITOR-Costs_TAXATION_SHORTHAND NOTES OF EVIDENCE he handed over the certificates to the trustees, but he did not transfer the Viva VOCE BEFORE TAXING MASTER-R. S. O., 1883, LXV., 25. shares into their names until the 19th of February, 1886. Meanwhile he had continued to receive the dividends as before, and to apply them to his
This was an appeal from the decision of Stirling, J. (35 W. R. 365, own use. In May, 1877, the trustees gave notice of the deed to the rail- ante, p. 271): The question was whether, in taxing the costs of a taxa. way company. In April, 1886, the settlor was adjudicated a bankrupt, notes of evidence taken viva voce before himself. He had suggested to
tion, the taxing master was right in allowing part of the costs of shorthand and the trustee in the bankruptcy applied to the court for a declaration that the settlement was void, and that he was entitled to the shares.
the parties that a shorthand note ought to be taken of that evidence,
It was proved to the satisfaction of Cave, J., that at the date of the deed of one note. Stirling, J., afirmed the decision.
and they had each had a note taken. The taxing master allowed the costs the settlor was able to pay all his debts without the aid of the property comprised in it, but Cave, J., held that the trustee in the bankruptcy was
The Court of APPEAL (COTTON, LINDLEY, and BOWEN, L.JJ.) affirmed entitled to the shares, on the ground that the interest of the bankrupt in had done all in its power to prevent unnecessary expense in shorthand
the decision of Stirling, J. COTTON, L.J., said that the Court of Appeal them had not passed to the trustees of the deed on the execution thereof.
notes. On the appeal it was argued that section 47 was not retrospective, at
As a rule the only shorthand notes allowed were those of the rate, so far as it contained provisions which were not to be found in judgment in the court below, and notes of the evidence were not allowed section 91 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. On behalf of the trustee in the master, or even a judge, had a right to order shorthand notes to be taken.
very special circumstances. He did not consider that the taxing bankruptcy it was urged that the transfer of the shares to the trustees of It was the business of the taxing master, as it was of the judge and of the deed was a "settlement” within section 47, and that, as the deed im- counsel, to take notes himself. But in this particular case the taxing posed no obligation on the settlor to make the transfer, it was a voluntary master had expressed an opinion that it would be best to have a shorthand settlement, and, having been made since the Act of 1883 came into opera- note taken of the evidence given before him, and both parties had acceded tion, and within two years before the adjudication of bankruptcy, it was void against the trustee in the bankruptcy, whether section 47 was retros
to that suggestion and had acted on it. They might have objected, but pective or not.
they did not. Both parties had a shorthand note taken, and the taxing
master had allowed the costs of one. The parties ought to have agreed The Court of APPEAL (Lord ESHER, M.R., and Fry and Lopes, L.JJ.? upon one shorthand writer, and, in the absence of evidence to shew whose affirmed the decisiun. Lord Esher, M.R., said that, although it might fault it was that no such arrangement was made, the taxing master was not be absolutely necessary to determine whether section 47 was retro: right in deciding that the same costs should be allowed as if only one note spective or not, the point was an important one, and had been fully had been taken. LINDLEY, L.J., concurred. Bowen, L.J., desired that argued, and it was right that the court should express its opinion. it should not be thought that, in allowing the costs in this particular Section 47 was, to a great extent, a repetition of section 91 of the Act of
the court had expressed any opinion that it was a reasonable prac1869. That section, however, applied only to traders, while section 47 tice to employ a shorthand writer before the taxing master, or that the applied to non-traders also, and section 47 contained a new proviso at the taxing master had any right to order one to be employed. As a general end as to the settlor's interest in the property passing to the trustee on the execution of the settlement. In Re Player (54 L. J. Q. B. D. 553), Q.C., and Normandy; Graham Hastings, Q.C., and Maidlow. SOLICITORS,
rule such a practice would be of the worst example.-COUNSEL, Maclean, Matthew, J., expressed an opinion that so much of section 47 as was identical with section 91 applied to matters which took place before the
R. J. Gooch ; R. Metcalfe. Act of 1883 came into operation, but that so much of section 47 as was
Re AARON WRAY-North, J., 23rd May. new was not retrospective. That at first sight appeared to be a modification of the ordinary rule, that an Act was not retrospective unless it SOLICITOR-ATTACHMENT-DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF Money–RECEIVING was expressly declared to be so. But where an enactment was repealed,
ORDER-JURISDICTION-DISCRETION-DEBTORS Act, 1869, s. 4-BANKand the repealing Act substituted a new provision for that which it
RUPTCY Act, 1883, ss. 9, 10. repealed, it appeared to be the true principle that so much of the new In this case an important question arose as to the jurisdiction of the enactment as was identical with the former enactment was retrospective, court to allow an attachment to issue against a solicitor for his default in but that the new matter was not retrospective, otherwise the result would not paying a sum of money which he had been ordered to pay in his be that persons who had broken the provisions of the former statute would character of an officer of the court, after a receiving order in bankruptcy be entitled to escape after it had been repealed. It was inconceivable that has been made against him. Section 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869, provides that could have been the intention of the Legislature when they replaced that, with certain exceptions, "No person shall be arrested or imprisoned the former enactment by a new enactment to a similar effect. But, as to the for making default in payment of a sum of money," one of the exceptions new matter introduced, there was no reason for saying that it ought to being (4) "Default by an attorney or solicitor in payment of a have a retrospective effect. If so, section 47 did not apply to any settle sum of money when ordered to pay the same in his character of an officer ments executed by non-traders before the Act came into operation, and the of the court making the order.” Section 9 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, proviso as to the interest of the settlor passing to the trustee did not provides that, after the making of a receiving, order against a debtor, apply to a settlement executed by a trader before the Act came into opera except as directed by this Act, no creditor to whom the debtor is indebted tion. Therefore, if the document executed in 1877 was a settlement of in respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy shall have any remedy the shares it did not come within the section, since the only ground for against the property or person of the debtor in respect of the debt, or impeaching it arose under the new part of the section. But could it be shall commence any action or other legal proceedings unless with the said that a document which did not pass the property, which did not con
leave of the court, and on such terms as the court may impose.". And, tain any covenant by the settlor to settle the shares, which left him free by sub-section 2 of section 10," the court may, at any time after the to deal with them as he pleased, and gave no power to anyone to force presentation of a bankruptcy petition, stay any action, execution, or other him to settle them, was a settlement within the meaning of section 47. legal process against the property or person of the debtor, and any court In his lordship’s opinion that was not a settlement within section 47. in which proceedings are pending against a debtor may, on proof that a But then came the transfer of the shares two morths before the bankruptcy petition has been presented by or against the debtor, either bankruptcy, and after the Act of 1883 had come into operation. His stay the proceedings or allow them to continue on such terms as it may lordship would not decide whether the transfer would have been a
settlement” if it had been made to carry out a prior valid settlement trustees of a will, and had received from them some sums of money for But in the present case there was no previous document which amounted the purpose of investment. He did not invest them, and on the 7th of to settlement, and the transfer clearly came within the words of sub. March, on the application of the surviving trustee and the residuary inttion 3 of section 47, and it was void, without any regard to the legatees under the will, North, J., made an order that the solicitor should, intention of the settlor in executing it, because it was executed within on or before the 7th of April, or subsequently within seven days after sertwo years before the bankruptcy.
Fry, L.J., said that he had arrived at vice of the order upon him, pay the moneys in question," being moneys the same conclusion, though by a somewhat different road. By sub- in his hands anā received by him as solicitor” for the trustees, to the Section 3 of section 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, ca settlement included surviving trustee. The order was served personally on the solicitor on the after the passing of the Act and within two years before the bankruptcy? Of motion, dated the 22nd of April, was served on the solicitor by the perthis bankrupt at the time of the bankruptcy, and would have been dis might be at liberty to issue a writ of attachment against the solicitor for tributable among his creditors. It was, therefore, ao transaction plainly his contempt in not paying the money pursuant to the order. Meanwhile, within both the words of the section and the mischief of the Act, and his on the 25th of April, a receiving order in bankruptcy had been made
Section 47 was clearly not retrospective in toto, but the cants were ignorant of this until they served their notice of motion. It no etion whether it was retrospective at also did not really arise, and was objected on behalf of the solicitor that section 9 of the Bankruptcy
Act was an answer to the application, an attachment being a “remedy dat was retrospective in one part, and not retrospective in another part, against the person of the debtor in respect of the debt.” was a novel mode of interpretation, and he was not sure that any saving
NORTH, J., held that he had jurisdiction to allow the attachment to issue,
, and Load
mended the following gentlemen as being entitled to honorary distinc. Drapers' Co., and is master of the company for the current year. 887. May 28, 1887. THE SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.
John Henry Hutchings, who served his clerkship with Mr. William LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
Smith, of Dartmouth. sts to be
Frank Heron Wilson, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Griffith & included INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
Lamb, of Cardiff; and Torr, Janeways, & Gribble, of London.
[In alphabetical order.] something successful at the preliminary examination held on the 4th and 5th days of
Godfrey Hale Boyce, who served his clerkship with Mr. Matthias Boyce, ons for the May, 1887.
of London. ne plainti
Thomas Hart, who served his clerkship with Mr. Francis Summers, of
Hull; and Mr. John Thomas Cotton, of London,
Francis Robert Nott, who served his clerkship with Mr. Frederick
Sortaine Hancock, of Devizes ; and Henry Archibald Dowse, of London.
Kent, William George
William Luscombe Munday, who served his clerkship with Messrs.
Gush, Phillips, Walters, & Williams, of London.
The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly given
Lewis, Cyril Alexander Owen class certificates and awarded the following prizes of books :-
To Mr. Padmore-prize of the Honourable Society of Clement’s-inn-
value 10 guineas; and the Daniel Reardon prize-value about 25
To Mr. Welch-prize of the Honourable Society of Clifford's-inn-value
To Mr. Parker-prize of the Honourable Society of New-inn-value 5
To Mr. George-prize of the Incorporated Law Society-value 5
To Mr. Neave-prize of the Incorporated Law Society-value 5
To Mr. Irons-prize of the Incorporated Law Society -value 5 guineas.
To Mr. Davies-prize of the Incorporated Law Society-value 5
To Mr. Hutchings-prize of the Incorporated Law Society-value 5
To Mr. Wilson-prize of the Incorporated Law Society-value 5
The council have given class certificates to the candidates in the second
and third classes.
The number of candidates who attended the examination was 37.
Rotten, John Richard Charles
Saunders, Johu Gower
Shaw, Thomas Davidson
Sinden, Arthur Frederick
Slater, Charles William
Mr. George ALDEN STEVENS, solicitor (of the firm of Miller, Stevens, &
Son), of Norwich, died on the 14th inst. Mr. Stevens was born in 1831.
He was admitted a solicitor in 1870, and he had ever since practised at
Norwich. He had an extensive practice in the city and neighbourhood, and
he was at the time of his death associated in partnership with Mr. Henry
Blake Miller, the town clerk of Norwich, and with his son, Mr. William
George Stevens. He was buried on the 19th inst. Mr. Stevens was for
many years a member of the Norwich Town Council, and he was an
alderman at the time of his death. The town council have passed a vote
of condolence with his family, and the mayor and many members of the Triemer, Henry Theodore
corporation were present at the funeral.
Mr. THEODORE BRYETT, solicitor (of the firm of Bryett & Hare), of
Totnes, died on the 19th inst., at the age of seventy-seven. Mr. Bryett
was born in 1810. He was admitted a solicitor in 1840, and he had since
conducted a large practice at Norwich. He had been for thirty-five years Houseman, Henry de Lancy Wardle, Arthur James
registrar of the Totnes County Court (Circuit No. 58), and he was district Irlam, Alfred William Weld, Joseph Edward
registrar under the Judicature Acts. Mr. Bryett was in partnership with
Mr. Frederick Trelawney Hare, who is clerk to the Totnes Burial Board
and clerk to the county magistrates.
Mr. John ROGERS JENNINGS, solicitor, of 7, Great Winchester-street,
solicitor in 1845. He is a member of the Court of Assistants of the
Mr. William BRANDFORD Griffith, barrister, C.M.G., has been created FIRST CLASS.
a Knight Comr nder of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sir olank. Augustus Padmore, who served his clerkship with Mr. Thomas He has been for several years Governor of the Gold Coast Colony, and
he was created a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George Alfred Bassett Starbuck Welch, who served his 'clerkship with Mr. in 1879.
Mr. ROBERT WILKINSON, barrister, has been appointed Junior Prosetehristopher John Parker, who served his clerkship with Mr. Richard cuting Counsel to the Mint at the Central Criminal Court. Mr. Wilkinson William George, who served his clerkship with Mr. Randal Casson, of member of the South - Eastern Circuit.
was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1864. He is a werederick George Neave, who served his clerkship with Mr. Arthur for the Island of Cyprus." "Mr. Justice Smith was called to the bar at the
Mr. ARTHUR Snice SMITH, barrister, has been appointed a Puisne Judge hemanetara Ingan who served his clerkship with Mr. Dossey Wightman, of Middle Temple in January, 1881. atite has been for out time acting as
Solicitor-General of British Guiana.
Mr. RICHARD EDMUND HILARY FISHER, solicitor, of 1, New-court, Carey-
to be iza
Robert Hall, of Lancaster.