Page images

R. 11.

lessee of the board instead of by the board themselves. The plaintiffs' | in question was a mere voluntary one, repayment of which could not be

unfair to purchasers and prejudicial to vendors. He, therefore, refused

MURRAY v. STEPHENSON-Q. B. Div., 27th May. the motion. On the appeal it was argued that the sale was not one wbich was authorized by section 95 of the Companies Act, 1862.

Time For SERVICE OF SPECIALLY-INDORSED WRIT-R. S. C., 1883, ORD. 64, The Court of APPEAL (Cotton, LINDIEY, and BowEN, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision. They were of opinion that the sale was authorized by sec In this case the writ of summons, which was specially indorsed, was tion 97, and that Chitty, J., bad exercised his discretion upon suficient served on the defendant at 11 o'clock at night on Saturday, April 30, evidence. The Court of Appeal ought not therefore to interfere.-Coun. 1887. On the 9th of May, the defendant not having entered an appear SEL, Rigby, Q.C., Romer, Q.0., and F. B. Palmer ; Sir H. Davey, Q.C., ance, the plaintiff signed judgment in default under ord. 13, r. 3, and Latham, Q.C., and T. H. Wright ; Sir H. James, Q.C., Maclean, Q.C., execution was issued thereon. The defendant then applied at chambers and Vernon R. Smith. Solicitons, Hollams, Son, f. Coward; Fresh fields & to have the judgment and execution set aside, on the ground that the Williams ; Linklaters f Co.

writ, having been served after 2 o'clock on Saturday, was, by ord. 64, r.

11, to be deemed to have been served on the following Monday, and, Re SMITH, LORD 1. HAYWARD-Kay, J., 24th May. therefore, judgment could not properly be signed in default of appearance WILL-CONSTRUCTION—Gift to CHILDREN OF A Deceased Person-WHETHER till the 10th of May. Huddleston, B., ordered the judgment and execu

tion to be set aside. The plaintiff appealed, and it was argued on bis GRANDCHILDREN ENTITLED IN DEFAULT or CHILDREN.

behalf that ord. 64, r. 11, applied only to pleadings, summonses, and The testator made separate gifts of shares in his residuary estate other like documents, and not to writs, and that a specially-indorsed in favour of the children of two of his deceased brothers and a deceased writ, although the indorsement was to be deemed to be a statement of sister, who should be living at his (testator's) death, each gift being claim, was still a writ and not a pleading: Veale v. Automatic Boiler similarly worded. The sister had left one only child surviving her, and Feeder (Limited) (ante, p. 364, 35 W. R. 454, 18 Q. B. D. 631). On the part he had died before the date of the will, leaving two children, who sur of the defendant it was admitted that ord. 64, r. 11, did not apply to vived the testator. And it appeared that the testator was aware of these ordinary writs, but it was said that there was a distinction between an facts. There were living at the testator's death children of both the ordinary writ and a specially-indorsed writ, and that the latter was a deceased brothers. The question was now raised by summons whether, pleading : Robertson v. "Howard (26 W. R. 683, 3.C.P. D. 280). And by under the gift in favour of the children of the sister, her grandchildren section 100 of the Judicature Act, 1873, "pleading” was to include any were entitled to take.

summons and also the statements in writing of the claim or demand of KAY, J., held that they were entitled. Ilis lordship said that the law any plaintiff. seemed to be this :-If a testator gave a legacy to the children of a

The Court (Mathew and A. L. SMITH, JJ.) allowed the appeal. person whom he mentioned as being dead, and at the date of the will | They said that by the old well-established practice a writ might be served there were not children, but only grandchildren, then they were held to

at any time. Under the Common Law Procedure Act special indorsebe entitled on the principle of " ut res magis valeat.But where a testator ments on writs were first used, and under the Judicature Acts the use of gave his property in a mass to the children of deceased persons, some of them was extended. Ord. 64, r. 11, provided for the service within whom had left children who survived, and others only grandchildren, the limited hours of certain documents, but writs were excluded. It was said court held it too difficult to construe “children" in two different senses. for the defendant that in the case of a specially-indorsed writ its character Or, again, in a case where the testator on the face of his will shewed an as a writ was absorbed in its character as a pleadivg. But two strange intention of using the term in its normal sense, by mentioning grand-consequences would follow from such a doctrine. First, there would be children as well as children. In the present case the testator had divided no need for a defendant who had been served with a specially-indorsed his residue into shares, in each case using the word "children” as the writ to take any step for ten days; and, secondly, no specially-indorsed class to take. It was, therefore, possible that, in one case, he meant writ could be served during the Long Vacation. As to section 100 of the children to take, and that in another, where he knew there were no Judicature Act, that did not refer to writs of summons. Therefore a

any children, he meant grandchildren. His lordship felt himself, therefore, specially-indorsed writ, like an ordinary writ, might be served at entitled to take the more liberal view, especially as there would other hour.–Counsel, Bray; Raven. Solicitors, Elliott f Ash; Gasquet $ wise be an intestacy as to the share.—Counsel, Tremlett ; Byrne ; Dauney. Metcalfe. SOLICITORS, Prior, Church, & Adams, for Philcox, Burwash ; Byrne § Lucas, for M. S. Stephen g Son, Chatham; Kingsford, Dorman, f Co., for W. H. Dawes, Rye,

WIGRAM v. FRYER–North, J., 26th May.

Ex parte LOVERING & CO., Re AYSHFORD-Cave, J., 3rd

EASEMENT-OBSTRUCTION BY LESSEE of Public Body-INJUNCTION OR Com- Re-HBARING-Deed of Assignment-Money Paid at Request or Credt:



SENT OF CREDITORS-Costs- BANKRUPTCY Act, 1883, 8. 4, SUB-SECTION A question arose in this case as to the effect of the Metropolitan Streets 1 (1) Toprovements Acts of 1877 and 1882. The action was brought to restrain the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs' ancient lights by some new

This was an application by Lovering & Co., accountants, asking the buildings which he was erecting.* The Act of 1877 empowered the order directing the official receiver, as trustee in the bankruptcy, to repay

court to re-hear a motion made by them on November 22 last, for an Metropolitan Board of Works to make certain new streets. It incorporated the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, and empowered the

to them the sum of £48 6s. 8d. which they had paid for the benefit of the Metropolitan Board to take the lands delineated in certain deposited estate for the benefit of his creditors, and Lovering & Co. were instructed,

In June, 1886, the debtor executed an assignment of his plans and to purchase the easements they should require to extinguish. by the trustees of such assignment, to prepare a statement of the debtor's dation for such of the labouring classes as would be displaced by the in- which the landlord of the debtor's premises, to whom £48 68. 8.. Weiss

A private meeting of the creditors was held on July 7, 1886, at tended improvements. purpose acquire or appropriate the lands coloured blue on certain de his claim for rent was paid he should distrain. Lovering was present he building, and' tbat the board should sell or lease the same on building estate it the landlord realized the goods under the distress, he, at the iniz

the meeting, and in order to save the loss which would be caused to the contract with the purchaser or lessee as to the design of the dwellings understood that he was to be recouped out of the first moneys coming in to be erected. It was provided by the Act of 1882 that, in the exercise

on account of the estate, the meeting having agreed to accept a composishould be cleared and artizans' dwellings constructed on it; and that,

necessary security, and on July 8, 1886, a receiving order was made portion of the land, which included the defendant's land, should be the official receiver, as trustee in the bankruptcy, for repayment of the Section 3 of the Act of 1882 repealed some of the provisions of section 33 the court, and on November 22, 1986, application was made to the count had taken a lease of part of the second portion of land from the board, was thinde potencbrequest bet fe creditors the application was refinerede the lease obliging the Tesece to erect artizans" dwellings on the demised Application wat nowe made to re-hear and decide the case, carepaymene was whether tåe plaintiffs remedy was by way of injunction, or whether two and applicand, signed both a majority in number and value of the cele land according to certain plans and elevations. The principal question menu itine, addition to the evidence required, a request for repay redit they were only entitled to compensation under section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as for lands “injuriously affected.”

tors had been filed.

case came within the principle laid down in Ex parle Mutton (14 Eq. 178); (9 Ch. 120) and The Duke of Depois V. Darison (20E4,033applied, and to the estate could not take that benefit without recouping the moment ihat it made no difference that the buildings were being erected by a

On the other hand the official receiver, while submitting that the payment opinion that the board had, by implication under the Act of 1882, powers

Cave, J., said that, with reference to the question of re-hearing, it was Act of 1877.--Counsel, Cozens-Hardy, Q C., and Byrne ; Giffard, Q.O., sented to the court.

The court ought not, except in a case of clear Tryon,

it on the former occasion.

On the other hand, if different materials were

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

found an application to re-hear might be made to the court by way of extra costs occasioned by such severance." To these objections the taxing
indulgence. In the present case there were materials which ought to master replied: "I am much impressed by what is stated in these objec-
have been brought to the notice of the court, and the application to tions on the above point. But this action was very serious, both in
re-hear would therefore be granted. Then, as to the general right of respect of property and character, to these defendants. They employed
anyone to recover in similar cases to the present, he certainly did not each of them his own solicitor, and I suppose they were entitled so to do.
intend to lay down a rule and establish a precedent that anyone who made I therefore allow to each defendant a separate bill of costs.”
a payment with his eyes open after an act of bankruptcy could come down

NORTH, J., affirmed the decision of the taxing master on this point.
on the trustee and ask for repayment on the ground that the estate had | He was of opinion that, under the order of the House of Lords, as well
reaped a benefit. The case of Ex parte Mutton (14 Eq. 178) went to the as under the Rules of Court, the taxing master had a discretion in the
very extreme There was no rule of law which entitled a man who matter. He had exercised his discretion, and his decision was final.
made a voluntary payment to recover that payment from the person who
might be benefited by it; and he should be slow to introduce a different the defendants' counsel. The taxing master allowed refreshers for the

Another question arose as to the number of refreshers to be allowed for rule into bankruptcy. It was no part of the duty of a judge to be generous with the money of the creditors. In the presenť case the cir- second, third, and fourth days of the first hearing, and for the day of the cumstances were favourable to the applicant. He was not a volunteer second hearing; but declined to allow a refresher for the last day of the altogether, because he was requested to make the payment by some of the

first hearing, because less than five hours were occupied on that day. principal creditors. The payment had undoubtedly benefited the estate,

The defendants objected" that, this being a witness case, and having lasted and the official receiver admitted that under similar circumstances he himself hearing, five refreshers to counsel ought to be allowed, and that such

four and a half days in the first instance, and another day on the rewould have made it. There was also the very important fact which was not before the court in November, and which had great weight both with being disposed of, either by name of refresher, or, at least, as a fee to

counsel were entitled to a fee on the case being re-opened after once regard to granting the leave to re-hear and to the present decision-viz; hear judgment.” The taxing master replied :

-The last daily refresher that after they were in a position to judge if the payment was beneficial

was disallowed because the attendance in court last previous to payment or not the majority of creditors in number and value had said that it was

of the refresher had lasted less than five hours. beneficial, and had expressed their willingness that repayment should be

The wording of ord. 65, made. If there was any doubt as to how far the payment had been refresher ought not to have been paid.”

r. 48, which is declaratory of the former practice, shews clearly that a beneficial he should have ordered repayment to the extent of the benefit to the estate, but here the whole payment was beneficial. If it had not

NORTH, J., was of opivion that, under the circumstances of the present been made the landlord would have distrained, and there would have been

case, rule 48 did not prevent the allowance of refreshers for a fifth day, the expenses of the distress to pay. It was not reasonable that the court and that they ought to be allowed.—Counsel, Cookson, Q.C., and A. G. should require that every creditor should consent, and where payment was

Langley ; Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and E. Beaumont; Phipson Beale ; Chadwyckmade at the request of the creditors, and a majority desired afterwards Tealey ; Butcher ; Haldane. SOLICITORS, Whites, Renard, & Co.; Hudson, that repayment should be made, he did not think the court would go too Matthews, & Co.; Smythe of Brettle ; S. W. Johnson & Son ; Blake f Hasclfar if it made an order. The estate, however, should not be put to

tine ; Aldridge, Thorn, f. Morris.
expense. It was right under the circumstances that the applicant should
get his money back ; but it would not be right that the creditors,

Re J. RAWSON, A SOLICITOR, &c.-Q. B. Div., 27th May. especially those who did not specifically consent, should be put to further This was a rule calling on a solicitor to shew cause why he should expense. Therefore, although the order would be made to repay the not answer certain matters contained in affidavits. The matter was £48 68. 8d., the official receiver must retain his costs of the hearing out of referred by the court to Master Hodgson, who now made a report to that amount and hand over the balance to the applicant.—Counsel, the court. The case arose out of the recent election for South Islington, Herbert Reed. SOLICITORS, Rooks & Co; W. W. Aldridge.

when Mr. Raymond Llewellyn was a candidate for the borough in the Conservative interest. After about a fortnight's canvass Mr. Llewellyn unfortunately caught a chill after a meeting and died from the effects of it. Failing him, Sir Albert Rollit came forward as a candidate on the

same side and was returned to Parliament. During this contest the soli. CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

citor in question acted as Mr. Llewellyn's election agent, and after his

death was continued in the same employ by Sir Albert Rollit. After Mr. BOSWELL v. COAKS-North, J., 26th May.

Llewellyn's death his widow employed Mr. Rawson to act as her solicitor Costs—Taxation - Severance or Derendants—Discretion or Taxing in taking out letters of administration, and he did work therein to the MASTER—“ReFreshEUS"-R. S. C., 1883, LXV., 29, 48.

extent of some £20. Being dissatisfied with him, she employed other soliThis action was brought to set aside a sale of an estate pur autre vie citors and they demanded of the respondent an account as against the

This account formed the basis of the present which formed part of the estate of a testator whose estate was being estate of the deceased. administered by the court. The sale was made, under an order of the application. The affidavits which the solicitor was called upon to answer court in the administration action, to Coaks and Bunyon, two of the disclosed the following charges—(1) that the respondent had charged as defendants in the present action, who bought as trustees for themselves his agent's fee 100 guineas, whereas it was alleged that by agreement with and four other persons, who were also defendants to this action. The the deceased he was only entitled to fifty guineas ; (2) that the respondent ground for setting aside the sale was that Coaks occupied a fiduciary had charged the estate of the deceased with various paymonts out of position, as the solicitor to some of the parties to the administration action, pocket to election messengers. It was alleged that some of these payand that he had not made a full disclosure to the court of facts which

ments had not been made at all and that others were overcharged. (3 were within his krowledge relating to the value of the life interest. All

That the respondent had charged thirty-three guineas for administration the six, defendants appeared separately in the action, and were repre- expenses, whereas he could only furnish items up to £20 193. 9d. was tried by Fry, J., and the trial occupied four whole days (February expenses sented at the trial by separate solicitors and separate counsel. The action Lastly it was asserted that the charge of fifty guineas for general

otherwise charged wilfully exorbitant 26 and 27, and March 5 and 6) and part of a fifth day (March 12)., On

the knowledge of the respondent. Counsel for the solicitor, March 12 Fry, J., stopped the defendants” counsel and dismissed the in shewing cause, said the court would not convict the respond action, with costs, without hearing any evidence on their behalf (23 Ch.

ent of wilful fraud when the master had not so found. These charges were inaccurate, negligent, and careless, but not dishonest, and the

A delivery of judgment being concluded at the mid-day ad journment of the respondent believed and acted on what his clerk Reed had told him. court. When Fry, J., returned into court after the adjournment, he said

mere excessive charge in a solicitor as against a client was not a ground that he thought he had not sufficiently considered one point in the case,

for punishing a solicitor by deprivation or suspension (Meux v. Lloyd, ind that he wished to hear further argument on this point, and evidence 2 c. B. N. s. 409). He quite accepted the rule of law as regards the

duties of solicitors and the powers of the court as laid down by Cockburn, occupied the whole of that day, and in the result Fry, J., adhered to C.J., in Re Francis Blake (3 E. & L. 34) and Bx parte Edwards (7 Q. B. D. Fry, J. (27 ch. D. 424), but the House of Lords restored the judgment of had received £160 from Mr. Llewellyn when alive for the electiones? tafánshould pay the defendants costs in all three courts, and that, in Osborne) to cover all the claims, and it was not until she discovered a bili faxing the costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the taking of £78 from a tradesman, supposed to have been paid, for the election separately had any sufficient reason for severing in their defences, and it, that sum the respondent had sent in a claim for some £90-against the thin the allow.only one set of costs, or only as many sets of costs as he should Rose, & Norton, Mrs. Llewellyn's solicitors, the respondent had put order the taxing master liad allowed him separate costs. In taxing the costs of the defendant Bunyon under the them off from time to time, and then put in this claim. When the

His case was inquiry took place before the master, Reed had sat there, but had treated as a test case. The plaintiffs objected to the allowance of more

not been called ; while it was shewn that the respondent kept his banking not be there was no conflicting interest between anys. f the defendants, and not an admitted solicitor.

Field, J., in delivering judgment, said the case was one of considerdefendants employed one solicitor in the sale which was sought to be set able complication, but the facts had been so clearly laid before the court appeal to the House of Lords, and put in a joint case, although appellants to people who were not forthcoming, amounting to £61, that he thought a can appear there separately if there is any difference in their cases; (+)

very serious matter, and they had not been asked to send the case back to that it was not equitable that the plaintiffs should be called on to pay the counsel said he was not a criminal, and he (the learned judge) did not say





there was one in this case. As to the practice of people practising as however, would deny that a state of law under which a country existed, solicitors, occupying a position of trust towards the public, with the name not for its people, but for a mere handful of them, ought to be instantly of uncertificated and irresponsible persons over the doors, that he thought and absolutely set aside. He denied that fifty, or a hundred, or a thouvery reprehensible, and it might possibly form the subject of another sand gentlemen, it might be, had the right to come to an agreement to inquiry. The master had found that the solicitor knew, when he claimed shut up the coal mines of England, or to stop the manufactures of Great 100 guineas as his election fee, that he was not entitled to more than fifty Britain, and to paralyze her commerce. Such an idea seemed to him unguineas, and that the charge was excessive and unfounded. The charges, speakably absurd, and was not even the idea held on such matters in perhaps, taken singly, would not justify the court in acting penally; but olden times, as the old statutes laid it down that, while property itself each charge must be considered as coupled with the others. And the should be acknowledged, the laws of its enjoyment should be regulated accordcharge for £50 incidental expenses turned out to be absolutely unfounded. ing to what was thought to be the general advantage. Then, again, as Had the respondent, then, been guilty of misconduct? He had no doubt regarded perpetuities, or what were sometimes called munificent bequests, whatever in his mind that he had. It was clear the respondent had not they sometimes heard people talk about them as if to interfere with them got a balance of the money now; that was gone, and yet every opportu- was an act of immorality and sacrilege ; but as yet no answer had been vity was given bim of acting rightly in making up his account, in given to Bishop Butler's statement that no man could give what he explaining his conduct afterwards, or having his case amended if he had not received, and that as no man himself could have & perpetuity, so could. He therefore thought the respondent had been guilty of dis he could not give it to himself.” It was often said they might, no honourable conduct amounting to fraudulent intention to hold the doubt, alter the laws of property on a proper cause being shewn for its money, and he had very serious doubts whether he ought to be alteration; and it would, indeed, be difficult, in the face of railways, gas, allowed to remain on the rolls. Looking, however, at all the facts water, harbour, dock, and other Bills, which passed every year through of the case, the judgment pronounced by Cockburn, O.J., and Parliament, to deny that private property might not be rightly interfered acting as leniently as he could, he felt that the honour of the with for the public good, even when the public was represented largely, profession, which he held very dear, could not be upheld without if not entirely, by a small band of speculators. But then it was said they a long sentence of suspension--namely, three years. STEPHEN, J., con must give proper compensation. What, he asked, were they to undercurred, and said the difficulty the court had was to rightly adjust their stand as proper compensation? If a foreign army landed on our shores, sentence. In the conduct of its officers that which was morally a crime and the general in command, in name of the Sovereign, ordered the dedeserved to be treated as a crime. In this case he entertained some doubt struction of a house which, if left standing, might be an important as to how near to crime the respondent had come, and of that doubt the position for the invading army, or it might be that a large tract of culti. respondent should have the benefit. The respondent had no doubt applied vated country was to be laid entirely waste-had the owners a claim-a the money (£360) to his own purposes, and then endeavoured to charge legal right-to compensation! It had been decided for centuries in Mrs. Llewellyn unjustly. If fraud had been brought home to the re- England, in accordance with good sense, against the owner. Certainly spondent, he would doubtless have been wholly unfit to carry on bis he had no right, Salus populi suprema lex. 'Lord Coleridgo then dealt with profession. Reed had sworn falsely that he did not know any vouchers the subject of sufficiency of compensation in private cases, and went on to had been asked for, and that none had been asked for, and when the trace the transferences of property from corporations to great proprietors, respondent would not call Reed before the master that looked very like and the circumstances under which further changes may take place. as if he made himself an accessory after the fact; but it was just the He remarked that the country belonged to its inhabitants, and difference between Rawson's conduct and Reed's conduct which prevented that the moment fragment of the people. set up rights the former from being struck off the rolls. As to the overcharges made inherent in themselves, and not founded on the public guod, by the respoudent, be thought them ungentlemanly, and such as no man plainly absurdities followed. They had heard a great deal lately in an honourable profession would make, but they hardly formed the of the enormous importance of maintaining the Eighth Comground for striking a man off the rolls. The rule would be made absolute mandment. Until recently there were no legal obstacles to the appro; with costs, that John Rawson, of King's-cross-road, bo suspended for priation of a wife's property. Money coming to her after marriage did three years.-COUNSEL, Chambers ; Houghton.- Times.

not fall within the scope of the Eighth Commandment. Great difficulty SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS.

was experienced in getting this commandment applied to wives' property;

but, after many struggles, the power of stealing was forbidden up to £200. 27th May-HENRY SAUNDERS (Wolverhampton).

Subsequently an attempt was made, and in the end successfully, to extend the prohibition to all the wife's property. Many questions of this sort arose under the laws of distress, the justice of which, to the ordinary and uninstructed mind, seemed to require explanation. To seize on a

man's goods, who owed pothing to any man, to pay the debt of another LORD COLERIDGE ON THE LAWS REGULATING did at first sight seem to be a breach of the Eighth Commandment.

Again, a great nobleman who owned half the land in a country might THE ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY.

hunger for the possession of the other half. Under certain conditions On the 25th ult. Lord Coleridge delivered an address to the members of this hunger was laudable enough ; but if it was a craving which prethe Glasgow Juridicial Society on "Thoughts on the Value of Clear vented the satisfying of the need of the poor man, who hungered for a few Views as to the Laws Regulating the Enjoyment of Property.” Sheriff acres, the possession of which was a necessity to his existence, he could Berry, Hon. President of the Juridicial Society, presided. Lord Coleridge only characterize the rich man's hunger as something between petty said that in the present day there was nothing that was more confusing larceny and highway robbery. It was certainly a breach of the Decalogue. and more mischievous than erroneous ideas of property itself, and in re

His whole opinion of the subject was that the laws of property were like gard to the laws and rules by which the practical enjoyment of property all other laws--made by the State for the State, and were the expression, was regulated in these islands. But the distinction between principle and from time to time, of the judgment of that cultivated intelligence which,

in a free country, controls and leads the opinion of the State upon the could possibly dispute it. The right of property-the right to possess Yana uught to be made without unnecessary disturbance, and, it might peaceabiy what one had acquired-underlay all society. Without some such right no society could exist. But the right of property had never be, with compensation to those who might suffer by the changes, doing existed, even in its most absolute form, without some restrictions. In the no violence to the great principle that right must not be compassed by earliest historical times the English State claimed the right to prescribe wrong or evil might come of it. It was often said that to change the conditions on which its citizens were to hold and deal with their the laws of property involved, as a rule, interference with free property. They would hear men talk as if a rule, once laid down, was


to deny that to interlaid down for ever—as if the rules of enjoyment of property became part fere with freedom of contract was mischievous and demoralizing. of the thing enjoyed. If anyone presumed to question the existence of But, unless the parties contracting were not only nominally but really

There could be po freedom of desired to propose any alteration of it, one had to do so, as in the old Greek contract between a slave and his owner, nor could there be freedom

of contract with a child. fact ; and in times past awfully and disgracefully the fact. In Blackstone's deliver every man and woman over to a degrading, hopeless, life-long time there were 160 felonies punishable with death. The vast majority of slavery, from which there was practically no escape and practically tad the statutes enacted were statutes to protect the enjoyment of property. which could never be paid off'; and the service was so bampered that hit All these horrors were effaced by slow degrees, and in the Place could not be relinquished except. at a loss 80 serious that at times it might determined opposition. successfully, was to subvert'life itself. This feeling was not dealPerhe undisturbed by passion, and free from prejudice. In these days of fierte changes on the ground that, to attack property. and to attack property deavoured to place a few thoughts before them as they really wantece confusion of thought, which was supposed to justify the feeling, was as dispute it was something to ascertain the limits within which they were to prevalent as ever, though particular examples of it might exist no longer. contend. It was something to be assured that the contests were on rested upon its general advantage. algo rest on one and the same foundation-namely, the general alvan

The enjoyment of property must built as secure as ever and entirely unassailed. tige. In this respect, the laws of property resembled all other laws. The defence of any other law was that it contributed to the general advantage. In a free country he could not conceive the laws standing upon any other ground. There were estates in these islands of more than a million acres, and it was plainly conceivable that they might grow much

LAW SOCIETIES. larger; and it was further quite possible that the growth of a vast em The annual general court of the association was held at the center





[ocr errors]


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

511 Esq., vice-president, in the chair. The report of the directors was as

sion was :

“That this society disapproves of the Irish Crimes Bill.” Mr. follows:

Charles Russell opened the debate, and was supported by Messrs. P., T. 1. The directors have the pleasure of submitting a report of their pro- Rhys, T. B. Napier, and o. Ellis, and opposed by Messrs. J. Lithiby, ceedings and the accounts for the past twelve months.

J. Douglas, J. D. Crawford, Lloyd Jones, and C. A. Mackintosh. The 2. The directors have considered thirty-one members' cases, and have chairman then put the motion to the society, but it was lost by a large distributed amongst them the aggregate sum of £1,256 138. 4d.

majority. 3. They have also considered numerous applications of the non May 10-Chairman, Mr. W. E. Elmslie. – The subject for discussion was members' classes, and have distributed the sum of £250 placed at their “That the case of The Bernina (12 P. D. 58), overruling Thorogood c. Bryan disposal amongst twenty-three cases, and recommend so the general (8 C. B. 115), was wrongly decided." Mr. W. Van Sommer opened the court that a sum of £300 be placed at their disposal for distribution debate, and was supported by Messrs. A. C. Macintosh and flowtin, and amongst the cases of non-members for the ensuing year.

opposed by Messrs. T. Douglas, H. A. Brady, and Bernard Hill. The 4. The directors have the pleasure to report that they have received question was negatived. towards the funds of the association & second donation of £100 from Mr. James Hopgood, and a donation of £21 from Ifr. Frederick Leigh Saunders. Mr. S. M. Slater, B.A., opened the debate in the affirmative

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.—May 3-Chairman, Mr. C. T. Hutchins, and of £52 10s. from Mr. Barclay Farquharsou Watson. 5. The several investments now belonging to the association are as

by moving: “That the passing of a Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill would follows-viz. :

be beneficial to the community at large.” Messrs. H. J. Jelf and W. H.

Copnall followed on the same side. Mr. G. A. Nutt, B.A., argued for the

£ 8. d. New Three per Cents.

negative, and was supported by Messrs. J. F. Addison and Percy Short.

22,480 11 9 Three per Cent. Consols

On putting the question to the meeting, the affirmative secured a small

2,000 0 0 Three per Cent. Reduced


2,000 0 0 India Four per Cents.

465 13 2

LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION.- April 25 - Chairman, Mr. Great Indian Peninsular Railway Stock.

2,500 0 0 Bright, Vice-President of the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool.East Indian Railway Company (Annuity Class B.) 6,837 10 0 A joint debate with the Birmingham Law Students' Society bad been

arranged, and after the private business of the meeting Mr. Slater (Bir

Total £36,283 14 11 mingham) opened the affirmative side of the following question :-"Is it 6. The dividenda received during the past year from these investments desirable that the Bill to amend the Law of Evidence, introduced into the amounted to £1,238 108. 2d., and with £329 149., the amount received for House of Lords this session by Lord Bramwell, should become law?” the like period in respect of annual subscriptions, and £100, £21, and

Mr. Inglis (Liverpool) argued in favour of the negative, and in the discus£52 108. donations, make the total income of the association derivable sion which followed Messrs. Raybould, Short, and Nutt (Birmingham), and from these several sources £1,741 14s. 2d. for the year.

Messrs. Thornely, Lewis, Todd, Rathbone, and Smith, took part. Mr.
7. The directors have to report with deep regret the deaths, during the Slater having replied, the question was put to the meeting, and carried in
past year, of the following members of the association : Mr. Richard the affirmative by a large majority. There were thirty-six members
Hervé Giraud, Mr. Joseph Needham, Mr. Henry Syme Redpath, Mr. present.
Alfred Benjamin Carpenter (your late secretary), Mr. Henry Nicholson,
Mr. Robert Few (who was one of your trustees and directors), Mr. Charles
Few, Mr. Newenham Chas. Wright, Mr. Jno. Chas. Burgoyne, Mr.
Edward Brydges Hardisty, Mr. Thos. Allen Hickley, Sir Richard Nichol-

son, and Mr. Edw. Weyman Wadeson.

OBITUARY. 8. The directors are sorry to state that very few new members have SIR CHARLES COOPER, 'Knt., formerly Chief Justice of South joined the association during the past year, and feel that it only needs a Australia, died at Bath on the 24th ult. in his ninety-second year. Sir little active personal effort on the part of individual members in explain-C. Cooper was the son of Mr. Thomas Cooper, of Henley-on-Thames, and ing the objects of the association, and in inviting professional friends to was born in 1795. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in become subscribers, to obtain a large addition to the list of members to Hilary Term, 1827, and he formerly practised on the Oxford Circuit. this metropolitan association, and thus enable the directors to make larger In 1839 he was appointed judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia, grants to the numerous applicants for assistance.

and in 1856 he became chief justice of the colony, and he retired on a 9. By the regulations of the association, the president, vice-president, pension in 1861. He received the honour of knighthood in 1857. Sir treasurers, directors, and auditors for the ensuing year, are to be elected V. Cooper was married in 1853 to the daughter of Mr. Charles Newenat the present meeting.

ham. 10. In conclusion, the directors cannot but feel that the proceedings of Mr. THOMAS NORMAN WIGHTWICK, solicitor (of the firm of Kingsford, past years are well calculated to impress on the minds of the supporters Wightwick, & Kingsford), of Canterbury, died on the 28th ult. Mr. of the association a strong feeling in favour of its continued usefulness, Wightwick was born in 1820. He was admitted a solicitor about and the only reward they desire for their exertions in this charitable work, the year 1843, and he practised for over forty years at Canis the approbation of the members at large, and their general activity terbury. He had a large practice, and he was formerly solicitor and zeal in promoting the interests of this truly benevolent metropolitan to the Kent and Canterbury Hospital, and clerk to the magistrates association.

and the Commissioners of Taxes for the Home and Wingham Divisions of Kent. He was formerly in partnership with Mr. Montague Kingsford, who is clerk to the East Kent Commissioners of Sewers, with Mr. Cecil Edward Kingsford, and with his only son, Mr. William Norman Wight.

wick, who was admitted a solicitor in 1872, and is now clerk to the Com. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

missioners of Taxes. Mr. Wightwick retired from practice three or four LAW STUDENTS SOCIETIES.

years ago.
UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.—April 25.—The subject for discussion
was whether “The complete emancipation of women, by their being ad-

mitted to the franchise, to all professions, to all legal rights, liabilities, Mugistrate for the borough of Cardiff. Mr. Lewis was called to the bar

Mr. Thomas WILLIAM Lewis, barrister, has been appointed Stipendiary and duties, upon an equal footing with men, is desirable?” The motion at the Middle Temple in June, 1879, and he has practised on the South was opened by Mr. White. Mr. Knight followed, contra. Mr. Shirley, Wales and Chester Circuit and at the Glamorganshire Sessions. M.P., proposed, as an amendment, “That the emancipation of women, by their being admitted to the franchise and to some of the professions and Clerk to the magistrates for that borough. Mr. Deane is an LL.B. of the

Mr. Edgar ERNEST DEANE, solicitor, of Batley, has been appointed Napier, Mr. White replied, and, upon the amended motion being put to has also been appointed Official Receiver in Bankruptcy for the district of the House, it was rejected by two votes. The original motion was then Dewsbury. Both offices were held by his brother, the late Mr. John put, and negatived by one vote. The society will in future, until further notice, meet in the Lecture Hall

Arthur Deane. of the Inner Temple, No. 3, King's Bench-walk, Temple. The hour of

Mr. James FOWLER, solicitor, of Stockton, has been appointed a Com. meeting remains the same, but it is not obligatory there, as in the Law

missioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Institution, to close debates at 10 p.m., and smoking is also permitted:

Mr. ALFRED DOUBLE, solicitor, of 27, Jewin.crescent, has been appointed May 9.-The question was whether it was advisable or not that marriage

a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. with a deceased wife's sister should be made legal. Mr. Spence opened | Supreme Court of the Colony of New South Wales.

Mr. MATTHEW STEPHEN, barrister, has been appointed a Judge of the the motion in the affirmative. Mr. Kains-Jackson opposed the motion. The following gentlemen also spoke-viz., Messrs." Eiloart, Goodall, appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of

Mr. ALEXANDER Wilson, solicitor, of 4, Cook-street, Liverpool, has been Common, Yates, Lewis, and Ball. Upon' being put, the motion was carried by a majority of eight votes.

New South Wales.
Law Students' DEBATING Society.—April 26—Chairman, Mr. R. L.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. Devonshire - Mr. J. D. Crawford opened the debate : "That it is desirable BENJAMIN BURDEKIN, JOHN WILLIAM PYE-SMITH, REGINALD BENSON, and to amend the law by allowing prisoners to give evidence on their trial, as proposed by Lord Bramwell's Bill," and was supported by Messrs. J. K. B.

BENJAMIN THOMAS BURDEKIN, solicitors, Sheffield. April 30. So far as concerns the said John William Pye-Smith.

[Gazette, May 27.] metion. After Mr. Crawford had replied, the motion was opened to the The business will in future be carried on by the said Edwin H. A. NewMetros. W. H. Pitman, E. Toda, Macintosh, and Richmond, opposed the solicitors (Newman & Wilson), 90, Cannon-street, London. March 23. May 3—Chairman, Mr. J. Cornelius Wheeler. The subject for discus

man and T. F. W. Crawhall Wilson, under the style or firm of Newman & Wilson.

[Gazette, May 31.]

[ocr errors]



....29 {beki anal' list if necessary






Thursday: 12} Apps from Chan gen list

County Palatine apps, and Monday...... 25
Thursday 7 if necessary apps from the



General paper.

Chun gen list



Thursday .. 28
Saturday ... 9

Friday ....29... Motns, adj sums, &

-Apps from Cban gen list

Saturday ...30

Pets., sht. caus., adj. sums. Tuesday....12

& geu, pa

App. motns. ex pte-orgl. MondayAug 1)

Tuesday.... 2
Mr. Justice
Mr. Justice

motns - apps. from ords
No. 1.

Wednesday 3
No. 2.

Wednesday 13made on interlocutory mota

(sep l'st), and apps from

4 Mr. Leach Mon., June 6 Mr. Pemberton Mr. Lavie

Mr. Beal

Friday gerer sl list if required

5 Tuesday 7

Romaining mts, remsining


Thursday ...14.

6 Wednesday 8 Jackson


pe's, adj sums & gen pa


Friday .....15
Thursday 9 Koe

Carrington Godfrey

Tuesday.... 9

Saturdy...... 16 ÇApps from Chan gen list
Friday ...... 10 Carrington


Wednesday 10

Monday ...... 18 Saturday... 11 Lavie

Carrington Godfrey

Tuesday ...19

Thurs, ....11
Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Mr. Justice

App mtns ex pte-original Friday; ....12 )

mtns-appeals from orders

Any cause intended to be heard as a short Monday, June 6 Mr. Clowes Mr. Koe

Mr. King
Wednesday 20 made on interlocutory mtns

cause must be so marked in the cause Tuesday 7 Pemberton Jackson

(sep list) & apps from gen Ward

book at least one clear day before the same Wednesday 8 Clowes

List if required

can be put in the paper to be so heard, and Thursday


Thursday ...21

the necessary papers must be left in court Friday


Friday ......22

with the judge's officer the day before the Saturday 11 Pemberton Jackson

Saturdy....23 Apps from Chan gen list

cause is to bo put into the paper.
Monday...... 25
Tuesdy ....26
App mtns ex pte-original

Chancery Court, III.
mtds--sppaus from orders


Wednesday 27{made on interlocutory mns

Tusdy, Joe. 7...Motions and non wits list (sep list), and apps from

Wednesday 8
App motns ex pte-Orgl

gen list it required

Non wit list
motns- & apps from orders

Thursday 9
Thursday ...28
Wednesday 273 made on interlocutory mots

Mtns continued & non wit
Appeal Court, I.

Friday 29
and also apps from final

Friday ......10
Apps from the Chancery

Saturday ...30
list if required
General List

Pets, sht. causes, opposed Final and interlocutory appeals from the

Mon., Aug.. 1

Saturday ...11 pets, Procedure suuns, & Thursday ... 28..Apps from Q B Fipal List Queen's Bench Division, the Probate,

Tuesday...... 2

non wit list Divorce, and Admiralty Division (Ad- Friday

App mtns ex pte-original

Mon........ .13...Fur cons and non wit list miralty), and the Queen's Beach Livision

mtns-appeals from orders Saturday ..30

..14 Sitting in Bankruptcy.


..3 made on interlocutory mtns
Mon., Aug... !Apps from Q B final list

Wed ..15 Non wit list
Tuesday.... 2)

(sep bst), and apps from

Thursday .., 16 )

gen list it required S App. mots. ex pte-org.

App. motng. ex pte-orgl. Tusdy.,June 7 mots-and apps from ordre

Friday ......17. Motns. & non #it list

County Palatine apps, and mots.-and apps, from ords

Pets, sht. causes, Procedure made on interlocutory mots

Thursdy.... 4 if necessary

apps from Wednesday 3{made on interlocutory mots

Saturday ...18 sumns,

Chan gen list
Interlocutory apps

opposed pets, &

(non wit list Wed.

and also apps from Final 8 tinued and if n'cossary QB

Friday .... 5

List if required
Final Apps


20.. Fur cons and non wit list Thursday

Saturday 6 Apps from the Chanc: ry

4..Apps from QB Final List Thursdy..

.21 T.... 9... Apps from Q B final list

Monday...... 8 General List

Wednesday 22 Causes with witnesses. Friday Bkoy apps & apps from Q B Friday


Tuesday.... 9
hai list if necessary

Final List if necessary


App intus ex pte-original Friday ....24. Motions and non wts list Saturday 6 Bat.. .11 Apps from the Q.B. Final Monday...... 8 Apps from the Q.B. Final mtnsmappeals from orders

Pets, sht. causes, opposed Monday......13

Tuesday 9
Wednesday 10/made on interlocutory mtns

Saturday ...25 pets, Procedure sumns, Tues., ....14)

(sep list) & apps from gen App motns ex pte-Orgl

non wit list
App. motns, ex pte-orgl.

list if required
motns-& apps from orders
motos-and apps, from ords

Monday ......27...Fur cons & non wit list
Wednes....15 made on interlocutory mots
Wednesday 10/made on interlocutory mtns

& also apps, from the final
and also apps from Anal

Wednesday 29 Causes with wits
list if required.

list if required

N.B.-Lunacy Petitions (if any) are taken Thursday ...30)

in Appeal Court II. on every Monday at Apps from the Q.B. Final Thursday .. 11.. Apps from Q B final list

Friday, July 1...Mns and non wite list Thursday ...16 List Friday, ....12 Eleyen until further notioe.

(Pets, sht causes, Procedure Q B final list it necessary

Bkcy apps & apps from QB

2 sums, opposed pets, and Friday ......17

non wit list
N.B.-Admiralty Appeals, with assessors,
Final List if necessary

Monday 4...Fur cons & non wits list ...... 18

are taken on specially appointed days. Mon.

Apps from the Q.B. Final

Tuesday ...... 5
Tuesday ..21

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Wednesday 6 Causes with wits

Thursday ...

7 App. mots. ex pte.-orgl.

Appeal Court, II. mots.--and apps, from ords


Friday.... 8... Motns. & non wit list

Pets, sht causes, opposed Wednsday..22 {made on inter

Final and interlocutory appeals from the

utory mots
and also apps from the final
Chancery, and Probate, Divorce, and

Chancery Court, I.


pets, Procedure smne, & list it required. Admiralty Divisions (Probate and Di

Cgen pap

YR, JUSTICE KAY. vorce), and the County Palatine and Thursday ..28... Apps from Q B Final List

Monday ......11...For coos & non wit list Stannaries Courts. Ş Bkcy apps and apps from Friday

Tuesday ......12

Tusdy, June 7.. Mots. adj sumns, & gen pa
QB Final List it necessary
App. mtns, ex pe-orgl. Wednesday 8

Wednesday 13 Causes with wits

General paper Satarday ..25

moins — apps. from ords.


Thursday ..14
Tusdy., Jne. 7
Monday....27 Apps from Q B Final List
made on interlocutory mots Friday ....10... Mots. adj, sumns, & gen, pa

Friday.........15...Motions & con wit list Tuesday ...28 (eep list)

Pets., sht. causes, procedare

Pets., sht causes, adj soms.
App. motns. ex pte. -orgl.

Saturdy.... 11
Apps from the Chancery

Saturday ..16 sums, opposed pets, and

& gen po
&pps. from
(General List

Wedzesday 29 { ordrs made on interlocu-
County Palatine Apps, and Tuesdy

Monday ...,18...Fur cops & non wit list tory motns and also appe. Thursday 9 if necessary apps from the

General paper.

from final list if required
Chun Gen List

Wednesday 20 Non wit list

Thursday ...16 Thursday ..30..Apps from Q B final list Friday ....10

Friday, ......17...Mtns, adj smns, and gen på

Thursday... 21
Sat.........11(Apps from the Chancery

Pets, sht causes, adj sums,

Friday, ....22..Motions and non wit litt QB final list if neceseary Monday ....13 General List

Sat, .........18

Pets., sht. caur., opposed

& gen pa
Tuesday 14.

Mon., ......20

...233 pets. Procedure sums. & Apps from Q B fipal list

non wit list
App. mots, ex pte- orgl. Tuesday ....21


.25., Fur cons & non wit list apps.

Wednesday 22
App. mots. ex pte-orgl. Wednesday 15 orders made on interlocu Thursday ...23

Tuesday ...26)
mots-and apps from ordrs
tory mots. (sep list) & apps Friday .24... Mots., adj. sums, & gen på

Wednesday 27 Non wit list
Wednesday B{made on interlocutory mots
from general list if required

Thursday ...28
& also apps. from final list Thursday ..16

..23 Pets., sht causes, adj sums,


.29...Mots, & non wit list

& gen. pa
if required
Friday ....17

Mon........ 27
Thurs. .... 7.. Apps from Q B final list Sat ........18 Apps from the Chancery

Saturday ..30 smns, opposed pets, &
Tues. ......28

General List
Bkoy apps and apps from

General paper
Monday ......20

Wednesday 29
QB final list if necessary
Thursday ...30

Mon., Aug. 1)
Saturday 9)
App. mo's. ex pte-orgl Friday, July 1... Motns adj cums, & gen. pa

Tuesday...... 2
Mon, ..11 Apps from Q B final list
motns, - apps. from ords

Wednesday 3
Pets., sht causes, aij sums,


Saturday Tuesdy ....12)

4 Wednesday 22 made on interlocutory mots


& gen. på
App. motns. ex pte-Orgl.
(84p list) and apps froin Monday

Friday .......
mot ns.--and apps.from ords
general list if required. Tues.


6 pts, adj smns (Procedure)

5 Wednesday 13 {made on interlocutory mtns, Thursday ..23


Monday.... 8 and non wits list 11 and also apps. from final Friday .... 24

9 Thurs


list is required.

....25 » Apps from Chan gen list Friday 8..Mts, adj sing & gen på.

Wednedy ..10
Thursday ...14...Apps froin Q B final list Monday ....27

Thursdy....11 s Pets., sht. Caus., adj sums,

Satrdy 9 .-8

(& gen. pl.

Friday ......12 (App mtns ex pte-Original Monday ..11 Saturday ..162

Any causo intended to be heard as a short Intos-apps from ords made Tuesday......12 Monday ......18 Apps from Q B fipal list

cause must be so marked in the cause Wednesday 29 on Interlocutory mins (sep Wednesday 13

book at least one clear day before the Tuesday......19

list). and apps from geu App motns ex pte-Orgl

Thursday ...14

same can be put in the paper to be so mots-& apps from orders Thursday ...30

list if required
Friday.... 15... Moins, adj stos, & gen. pl.

heard, and the necessary papers must Wednesday 20 made on interlocutory mtns

Friday, July 1

...16* Pets, shit. caus, adj., sumns,

be leit in court with the judge's officer

{ & gen pa and also apps from final Saturday

the day before the cause is to be put in list it required 2 > Apps from Chan gen list Monday.... 18

the paper. Monday...... 4 Thursdy.... 21...Apps from Q B final list

5 Bkcy apps and apps from

Wednesday 20
Friday ....22
App mtns ex pte-original Thursday ..21.

Chancery Court, II.

MR. JUSTICE NORTH, mutions--apps from orders Saturday ..23

Wednesday 6{made on interlocutory mos

....22 Motns. adj. sums. & gen pa. Monday ...25 Apps from Q B final list

Tucs., June 7 Tuesdy.......26

(sep list), and apps from

Pets., sht. caus, ad , SUDS.
Saturday ..23


8 Adj. sums. genera! list it required

& gen. pa

Thursday ..


[ocr errors]


non wit list


Friday, July 1 { Bkep apps and apps from

Monday ....
Tues, .........

General paper

Pets, sht. causes, procedure

non wits list

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