« PreviousContinue »
GRAHAM, ROWLAND MOYSES, Gt Grimsby, Newsagent. June 15 at 12. Off Rec, SLIGHT, JOHN BULLIVANT, King's Lynn, Olerk in Holy Orders. King's Lynn.
Pet May 12. Ord May 31
Pet Apr 28. Ord May 26
SOUTHALL, DAVID, Edgbaston, Warwickshire, Fish Dealer. Birmingham Pet
May 16. Ord May 31
May 25. Ord June 1
THOMAS, DAVID, Carmarthen, General Merchant. Carmarthen. Pet May 25.
WARMSLEY, WILLIAM HARMAN, Fenchurch st, Commission Agent. High Court.
WARWICK, HENRY, Gt Suffolk st, Borough, Bootmaker. High Court. Pet May
WERB, THOMAS, Cambridge rd, Bethnal green, Bootmaker. High Court. Pet LANGWORTHY, EDWARD MARTIN, address unknown. June 15 at 12. 83, Carey May 25 Ord May 28 et, Lincoln's inn
ZACHARY, WILLIAM FISHWICK, Walton, nr, Liverpool, Furniture Dealer. Liver-
ated Law Society. Lincoln's inn bldgs, Bowlalley lane. Hull
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, June 7.
ALCOCK, THOMAS, Leamington, Shoeing Smith. Warwick. Pet June 2. Ord
ARNALL, EDWARD WILLIAM, Essex rd, Islington, Hatter. High Court. Pet
ASH, ROSINA, Birmingham, Pawnbroker. Birmingham. Pet June 3. Ord June 3
BARLEY, SAMUEL, Aldeburgh, Suffolk, Smack Owner. Ipswich. Pet June 3.
23. Ord June 4
BUCKLE, WILLIAM, Leeds, Tea Dealer. Leeds. Pet June 2. Ord June 2
CLAY, ARTHUR EDWIN, Gt Yarmouth. Confectioner. Gt Yarmouth. Pet June
2. Ord June 2 ruptcy bldgs, Lincoln's inn
COLE, GEORGE, Swansea, Boot Maker. Swansea. Pet June 3. Ord June 3
Ord June 2
Pet June 4. Ord June 4
Crewe. Pet June 1. Ord June 4
11, Quay st, Carmarthen
DAWSON, THOMAS, Sutton, Surrey, Carpenter. Croydon. Pet June 1 Ord June 1 ruptcy bldgs, Lincoln's inn
DOVE, JOHN, New Clee, Lincolnshire, Smack Owner. Gt Grimsby. Pet June 1.
DRABBLE, CHARLES JAMES, Stratford, Essex, Draper's Assistant. High Court.
EMERTON, ROBERT JOHN, Rickmansworth, Herts, Plumber. St. Albans. Pet
FORD. WILLIAM, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. Birmingham. Pet May 5.
GARDINER, JOHN ROBERT, Kingston upon Hull, Draper. Kingston upon Hull.
Pet May 25. Ord June 4
HOGGART, WILLIAM, Leeds, Grocer. Leeds. Pet June 2. OriJune 2
28. Ord May 31
LEACH, RICHARD COMYN, Cardiff, Agent. Cardiff. Pet May 2. Ord June 3
LEWIS. THOMAS, Ynyshir, Glamorganshire, Boot Maker. Pontypridd. Pet
PELLING, EDWARD, Southampton, Grocer. Southampton. Pet June 1. Ord
PHELPS, FREDERICK, Gower pl, Euston rd, Publican. High Court. Pet May 14.
Ord June 3
RAW, HENRY THORNTON, Furnival's inn, Solicitor. High Court. Pet Feb 22. Ord
RICHARDS, EDWIN, Maindee, nr Newport, Mon, Commission Agent. Newport, stall. Pet May 28. Ord June 1
Mon. Pet June 3. Ord June 3
SMITH, SAMUEL, Scarborough, Stonemason. Scarborough. Pet June 2. Ora
Pet May 31. Ord
VAN WALWYK, WILLIAM, Clerkenwell rd, Diamond Mounter. High Court. Pet
June 3. Ord June 3
Pet June 2. Ord June 2
Huddersfield. Pet June 2. Ord June 2
WILSON, JOHN PATERSON, Birkenhead, Licensed Victualler. Birkenhead. Pet
May 12. Ord May 31
21. Ord June 2
The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the MARKS, HENRY, Great Eastern st, Shoreditch, Clothier. High Court. Pet June
London Gazette of May 24. 1. Ord June 1
WHITING, BENJAMIN WILSON, Diss, Norfolk, Builder. Ipswich. Pet May 18. MAYON, WILLIAM, Birmingham, Furniture Dealer. Birmingham. Pet May 21. Ord May 18
FIRST MEETINGS. MELLOR, THOMAS, Sheffield, Grocer. Sheffield. Pet May 5. Ord May 27 ALLCOCK, CHARLES, Bewdley, Worcestershire, out of business. Juue 14 at 12. NEALE, HARRY, Salisbury, Painter. Salisbury. Pet May 10. Ord May 28
Miller Corbett, Solicitor, Kidderminster PALMER, THOMAS WILLIAM GASCOIGNE, Cheltenham, Dental Surgeon. Chelten
ALCOCK, THOMAS, Leamington, Shoting Smith. June 15 at 2. Off Rec, 17, Hertham. Pet April 27. Ord May 28
ford st, Coventry Court. Pet May 10. Ord May 28
Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool 26. Ord June 1
ing PINCE. CHARLES, Cambridge rd, Mile End, Easy Chair Maker. High Court.
BARNETT, CHARLES, Pembroke Dock, Grocer. June 14 at 11. Off Rec, 11, Quay
st, Carmarthen POWELL, THOMAS, Hodnet, nr Market Drayton, Farmer. Nantwich and Crewe.
BILLINGHAM, WALTER, Brierley Hill, Staffordshire, Brewers' Drayman. June
14 at 3.15. Talbot Hotel, Stourbridge PRESCOTT, JOHN RICHARD, Preston, Grocer. Preston. Pet May 26. Ord May 26
BONIFACE, WILLIAM JOHN, and HENRY GEORGE BONIFACE. Southampton,
Cabinet Makers. June 15 at 2.30. Off Rec, 4, East st, Southampton RICHARDSON, WILLIAM HENRY. St George's rd, Southwark, Hosier. High BROWN, WILLIAM, High st, Stoke Newington. Draper. Sune 16 at 11. Bank
ruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields ROBERTS. JOHN, Bournemouth, House Decorator. Poole. Pet May 13. Ord
OLAY, ARTHUR EDWIN, Gt Yarmouth, Confectioner. June 15 at 11. Off Rec, 8, SEEA SEATON, JAMES DEUMMOND, and JAMES SKEAVINGTON, Ilkeston, Derby-COLE, GESNER, Swansea, Bootmaker. June 16 at 11. Of Rec, 6, Rutland st, shire, Lace Makers. Derby. Pet May 12. Ord May 31
Ord May 31
COOK, JOHN, Fox st. New Brompton, Coffee Van Driver. June 16 at 11.30. Off GOLDBERG, EPHRAIM HYMAN, Burdett rd, Bow, Wardrobe Dealer. High Court.
Pet Apr 20. Ord June 2
GREEN, JOHN, Cbewton Mendip, Somerset, Dairyman. Wells. Pet May 31. COSEDGE, HIRAM, Old Serjeant's inn. Chancery lane, Solicitor. June 14 at 11.
Ord June 3 Bankruptey bldgs. Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields
HILL, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Bournemouth, Music Seller. Poole. Pet May 12. CRELLIN, HENRY, Liscard, Cheshire, Builder. June 15 at 2. Off Rec, 48, Hamil
Ord June 3 ton sq, Birkenhead
HILL, WILLIAM, Walmer rd, Notting hill, Ironmonger. High Court. Pet June DAVEY, GEORGE, Neath, Glam, Switchman. June 14 at 12. Castle Hotel, Neath
1. Ord June 3 DAWES, FREDERICK, Walsall, Rope Maker. June 15 at 11.30. Off Rec, Walsall HOGJART, WILLIAM, Leeds, Grocer. Leeds. Pet June 2. Ord June 2 FITTOCK, EDWIN J, Long Acre. June 16 at 11. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn
HOUGHTON, HENDEN, Old Kent rd, Grocer. High Court. Pet May 25. Ord
June 2 GOUGH, JAMES, Bristol, Baker. June 14 at 12. Off Rec, Bank ch brs, Bristol
HUGHES, WILLIAM SWANSTON, Newcastle on Tyne, Merchant. Newcastle on GREEN, JOHN, Chewton Mendip, Somerset, Dairyman. July 12 at 12. Mitre Tyne. Pet May 16. Ord June 3 Hotel, Wells
HUNTINGDON, JAMES, Newcastle on Tyne, Musical Dealer. Newcastle on Tyne. HALL. GEORGE, Sheffield, Draper. June 15 at 11.30. Off Rec, Figtree lane, Pet May 17. Ord June 3 Sheffield
JONES, JOHN, Lambeth walk, Fruiterer. High Court. Pet June 2. Ord June 3 HARRISON, JONATHAN, Seaton, nr Hornsea, Farmer. June 14 at 12. Off Rec, Lincoln's inn bldge, Bowlalley lane, Hull
KINDRED, GEORGE, Consett, Durham, Draper. Newcastle on Tyne. Pet May
21. Ord June 2 HOLDER, RICHARD, Leominster, Innkeeper. June 16 at 11.30. 18, Corn sq, Lenminster
LEACH, RICHARD COMYN, Cardiff, Entertainment Agent. Cardiff. Pet May 2.
Ord June 4 HUNT, TOM OLIVER, Leominster, Surgeon. June 16 at 10.30.
18, Corn eq, LEWIS. CHARLES, Old Town, Croydon, Butcher. Croydon. Pet April 29. Ord LEACH, RICHARD COMYN, Cardiff, Entertainment Agent. June 17 at 2.30. Off PEACE, HENRY HORTON, Denby Dale, Yorks, out of business. Bansley. Pet Rec, 3, Crockberbtown, Cardiff
May 13. Ord June 4 LEWIS, CHARLES, Old Town, Croydon. June 20 at 12. 109, Victoria st, Westminster
SCHOFIELD, SAMUEL ROBERT, Coleman 'st, Financial Agent. High Court. Pet
March 30. Ord June 2
SLANEY, WILLIAM, Kirkby in Ashfield, Nottingham, Baker. Nottingham. Pet
June 1. Ord June 2
SMITH, SAMUEL, Scarborough, Stonemason. Scarborough. Pet June 2. Ord
June 4 MAYNARD, HENRY N. and HENRY JOHN COOKE, Westminster chmbrs, Victoria st, Engineers. June 15 at 11. Bankruptcy bdgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn
SWINFORD, JOHN, Cheltenham, Whitesmith. Cheltenham. Pet May 28. Ord fields
June 2 NICHOLS. FREDERICK CHARLES, Fountain ct, Aldermanbury, Warehouseman.
THOMPSON. FREDERICK JOHN, Somerby, Leicester, Publican. Leicester. Pet June 14 at 12. 33, Carey st. Lincoln's inn
May 21. Ord June 4 PELLING, EDWARD, Southampton, Grocer. June 15 at 3. Off Rec, 4, East st,
WETHERELL, ROBINSON, Mooreley, Durham, Auctioneer. Durham. Pet May 28.
Ord June 4
WHITEHOUSE, GEORGE, Birmingham, Electro Plate Manufacturer. Birmingham. County Court, Bank bdgs, Hastings
Pet June 2. Ord June 2 POWELL, THOMAS, Hodnet. nr Market Drayton, Farmer. June 14 at 10.80.
WHITEWAY, ROBERT, Liverpool, Cab Proprietor. Liverpool. Pet April 26. Ord Oorbet Arms Hotel, Market Drayton
June 2 PRICE. JOHN, Nottingham, Builder. June 14 at 12. Off Rec, 1, High pavement,
WILSON, JOHN PATERSON, Birkenhead, Licensed Victualler. Birkenhead. Pet Nottingham
May 12. Ord June 3 RANDLE, ARTHUR, Fillongley, Warwick, Baker. June 15 at 12. Off Rec, 17,
WYATT, JOHN, Coleford, out of business. Newport, Mon, Pet May 18. Ord Hertford st, Coventry
June 3 RUFFY, ELIZABETH LOUISA, Geddington, Northampton, Spinster. June 16 at 4.
YEOMAN, HENRY SHEPPARD, Frome, Somerset, Draper. Frome. Pet May 25.
Ord June 3
The following Amended Notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of May 24. SHEFFIELD, THOMAS NEEDHAM, Wandle rd, Upper Tooting, Solicitor. June 14 at
WHITING, BENJAMIN WILSON, Diss, Norfolk, Builder. Ipswich. Pet May 18. 12. Bankruptcy bdgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields
Ord May 18 SHERSON, ERROLL H'S, Longridge rd, Earl's ct, Gent. June 16 at 2.30. 33, Carey HIGGS, JAMES, Oxford, Cab Proprietor. Oxford. Adjud Feb 23. Annul May 19
ADJUDICATIONS ANNULLED. st, Lincoln's inn SLANEY, WILLIAM, Kirkby in Ashfield, Nottingham, Baker. June 14 at 11. Off ROSE, DAVID, WILLJAN NAPOLEON ROSE, and ARTHUR THOMAS FREDERICK Rose,
Rec. 1, High pavement, Nottingham
Moxley, Stafford, Ironmasters. Walsall. Adjud May 22, 1886. Annul May 11
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
AUSTIN.—June 7, at Acol-road, West Hampstead, the wife of J. V. Austin,
barrister-at-law, of a son. fields WHITEWAY, ROBERT, Liverpool, Cab Proprietor. June 15 at 3. Off Rec, 35,
FORD.-June 7, at Streatham, the wife of Edward Ford, barrister-at-law, of a Victoria st, Liverpool
daughter. WILLIAMS, CECIL HENRY JOHN, Portland st. June 16 at 12. 33, Carey st, Lin.
MOLONEY.—May 30, at Stamford-road, Kensington, Ada, the wife of M. Moloney,
barrister-at-law, of a daughter. coln's inn
MARRIAGES. WILLOUGHBY, EDWIN THOMAS, Jamaica rd, Bermondsey, Printer. June 15 at AUSTIN-ROE.-June 1, William Austin, of Luton, solicitor, to Minnie, daughter 2.30. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn
of John Chambers Roe, of Norwich. YEOMAN, HENRY SHEPPARD. Frome, Somersetshire, Draper. June 17 at 12.45. Great Western Hotel, Paddington
HOPE-DALE.—June 1, Collingwood Hope, barrister-at-law, to Alice Therese,
daughter of Robert Norris Dale. of Brom borough Hall, Cheshire. ADJUDICATIONS.
NASH-JACKSON.-June 1, William Harry Nash, barrister-at-law, to Caroline BAKER, HENRY WILLIAM, Hamilton rd, Grove rd, Bow, Tobacco Pipe Maker. Maude, daughter of Captain Milbourne Jackson, R.N.
High Court. Pet May 31. Ord June 3 BUCKLE, WILLIAM, Leeds, Tea Dealer. Leeds. Pet June 2. Ord June 2 JOHNSON.—May 30, George Johnson, of 7, King's Bench-walk, Temple, aged 75 BURTON, GEORGE, Green st, Bethnal Green, Leather Merchant. Pet May 23. Ord June 2
High Court. ROUSE.-June 2, at Melton, Suffolk, Rolla Rouse, barrister-at-law, in his 82nd CLAY, ARTHUR EDWIN, Great Yarmouth, Confectioner. Great Yarmouth. Pet
year. June 2. Ord June 2
SHELTON.-May 27, at Southsea, George Lane Shelton, solicitor, aged 72 years. COOK, JOHN, New Brompton, Kent, Coffee Van Driver, Rochester. Pet: June 2.
Ord June 2
519 | THE COUNTRY LAW SOCIETIES ON
THE REPORT OF THE COUNCIL OF Ord June 2
THE LAND TRANSFER BILL DOVE, JOHN, New Clee, Lincolnshire, Smack Owner. Great Grimsby. Pet June
THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY LEGAL NEWS
ON THE (AMENDED) LAND TRANS1. Ord June 1
521 FAULTY, WILLIAM, Aldershot, Grocer. Guildford and Godalming. Pet May 28.
THE JUBILEE FESTIVITIES.... 523
529 FLINT, JAMES CLIFFORD, Solon rd, Brixton, Clerk. High Court. Pet May 25.
THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY ON
THE LAND TRANSFER BILL, 1897.. 541
551 551 625
EDE AND SON,
MAKERS, The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or
BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT, Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."
Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c. all palates, keeps for years in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such ROBES FOR QUEEN'S COUNSEL AND BARRISTERS. Mixtures. Made instantaneously with boiling water, a te spoonful
SOLICITORS' GOWNS. to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible,
Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town Clerks, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when
and Clerks of the Peace.
CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY AND CLERGY GOWNS
THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OUT.
WODDERSPOON & Co., 7, SERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET,
LINCOLN'S INN, W.O.
559 ..... 657
CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.
Mr. C. F. BRICKDALE's letter to the Times (which we reprint In the Solicitors' Journal. Newman & Co. v. Pinto & Sons.... 558 elsewhere) will shew what we meant when we said last week
Pereira, Re Arnold, Re
560 that, “as matters stand at present, the probable result to solicitors
Roberts, Re, Evans v. Thomas. Attorney-General v. Mayor, &c., of Somerset, Re
of the passing of the Land Transfer Bill will be—first, a conBlackburn
Whistler and Richardson, Re Blackwell v. Great Eastern Land
.... 569 siderable increase of profits, but subsequently, a most unreasonable and Building Co.
In the Weekly Reporter. and unnecessary diminution.” It has always been assumed that Blair & Girling v. Cordner ....... Bridge, Re, Franks v. Worth...... 558 Clarke v. Thornton .......
on the first registration of land the solicitor will be entitled to his Briton Life Association, Re
Coburn v. Collins
... 610 full scale fee in addition to the fee allowed to him in connection Calvert v. Thomas and Lloyd
Cooke's Estate, In re ... Edmonds y. Blaina Furnaces Co... 559 Herbert, In re
606 with registration, and as it will be observed that Mr. BRICKDALE does G. Castle, Re
Mallet v. Hanley and Another .... 607 not refer in any way to the costs of first registration, it may probHarsant v. Blaine, Macdonald, & Co.
Rollason, In re, Rollason v. Rol ably be taken that the general expectation will prove to be correct. Hermann Loog (Lim.), Re .... Lindsey, Ex parte, Re Bates York, In re, Atkinson v. Powell
The added registration fee will be the source of the increased McHardy v. Liptrott ...
profits on first registration. Mr. BRICKDALE's letter may, how
ever, be taken to shew that, on dealings with land after The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter.
Journal and Reporter. to be allowed to solicitors ; and the amount of the diminution of LONDON, JUNE 18, 1887.
which we spoke, on dealings with land after the first registration,
may be estimated by taking a purchase for £3,000, on which the CURRENT TOPICS.
solicitor's fee, it appears, as at present intended, will be £8 88., in
place of the vendor's solicitor's fee of £35 for deducing title, and Mr. JOHN WAINEWRIGHT, the senior Chancery taxing master, the purchaser's solicitor's fee of £35 for investigating title—that is has retired. Mr. WAINEWRIGHT was appointed in 1842.
to say, instead of £70 coming to the profession, £8 88. will be received by the purchaser's solicitor. When the Bill was first in
troduced we drew special attention to this question of the reAN ORDER which we print in another column transfers 100 causes muneration of solicitors on dealings with land subsequent to the to Mr. Justice KEKEWICA for the purpose only of hearing or trial; first registration, perhaps Mr. BRICKDALE’s statistics may be more of this number 30 are taken from the list of Mr. Justice Caitty, effectual in dispelling the apathy which seems hitherto to have ex40 from that of Mr. Justice North, and 30 from that of Mr? isted on this subject. Tustice STIRLING.
559 560 561
PERHAPS IT would only be consistent with propriety that the deliberations of the committee now sitting to devise a scheme for
LANDOWNERS will not have a heavy burden entailed upon them amalgamating the duties of some of the Chancery officers should by the new clause for compulsory redemption of small sums of tithe remain secret until the committee have arrived at a conclusion. rent-charge which was inserted in the T'ithe Rent Charge Bill by But it somehow happens that little matters do occasionally ooze the Bishop of London, and has been hailed with great satisfaction out, and it is now stated to be a question whether the committee by the clergy. By the clause in question it is proposed " that where shall separate without making any report, or whether they shall tắe total amount of tithe rent-charge which is charged on the report that they are unable to agree to any scheme. Few members lands of the same owner does not exceed two pounds, the person of the profession will be surprised to hear this; the general for the time being entitled to the tithe rent-charge may require opinion appears to be that the present division of labour which such owner to redeem the same by payment to the Ecclesiastical prevails in the Chancery offices cannot be materially altered so as
Commissioners either of a capital sum equal to twenty-one times to increase the efficiency of the several departments. It is also the amount of the rent-charge or of an annuity foz fifty-two urged that, if the cost of the appointment of an extra judge had years calculated at the rate of £1 16s. for every £2 of tithe rentnot been brought forward, no attempt would have been made to charge.” Unless, therefore, an owner has land in more parishes ant upon the resolutions of Lord SELBORNE's Committee respecting than one, he will not be called upon to pay more than £42, and the Chancery offices, and that no reduction can be made which
even then he has the choice of paying by an annuity-an alternawill provide the sum required.
It may be hoped that the tive in which we do not see much advantage except to the clergy, present committee will adopt the suggestion recently offered who will get the benefit of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as them in these columns, and express to the Lord Chancellor the agents to recover the annual payments due to them. It may be opinion that no change is advisable.
expected that these powers of compulsory redemption will be largely put in force, as there is much trouble and expense attendant upon the collection of a large number of very small
amounts of tithe. Especially is this the case in towns where, on A NEW PRACTICE which has recently been adopted by Mr. Justice each division of land under building leases, each separate plot, and, NORTH does not at first sight commend itself as tending to con- if the Bill should pass, the owner of each "separate plot, would be venience. It is shortly this :-"In drawing up an order made by liable for a minute proportion of the tithe. consent, it is right not to enter the evidence as read," although it is the evidence which has brought about the consent. Up to a very recent date it was the practice of the chancery registrar to enter in orders made by consent whatever evidence the parties laid
The inconvenience of omitting all mention of the evid The rule laid down by JESSEL, M.R., in Re Tanqueray-Wilence in such cases is, however, more apparent than real. It appears laume and Landau (30 W. R. 801, 20 Ch. D. 465)—that after that the taxing master will on taxation take note of all the evidence twenty years from a testator's death it must be presumed that his adduced and not read, much in the same manner as he would take debts have been paid—is now well known, but considerable doubt Galled. But upon the whole the old practice appears to be the limited to the case of a sale by executors under a charge of debts,
or does it extend to a sale of leaseholds by executors ? In the having been brought forward is set at rest, and the taxing master case in which it was laid down, executors, in whom the legal is assisted to that extent. It is true that a principle is involved fee was vested, were selling real estate charged with debts ; in the question whether on a consent order the evidence should but there appears to be nothing in the judgments to limit the be read; but no court would allow an order taken by consent to application of the rule to those circumstances. JESSEL, M.R., weighed by the court pronouncing the order. The rule above cient to raise a presumption that the debts have been paid.
“The only remaining point is what period of time is suffimentioned was adopted by Mr. Justice North on the 10th inst. on
I think it desirable that a rule should be laid down upon which an application to vary minutes in a case of Blakey v. Shaw.
parties may act without having to come to a court of equity, and
IN A CASE of Stokes v. Stokes last week an attempt was made to persons. If a solicitor were to perform business necessary to be
the application of this rule to solicitors, and Lord Lyndhurst went
on to say that it applied to them as strongly as to any other
in my opinion the reasonable period is twenty years.
argue that section 67 of the Judicature Act, 1873, has taken away Where you find a beneficiary in possession and twenty years have the power, which the High Court would otherwise have, of remitelapsed, I think it is fair to presume that the debts have been ting actions for slander to a county court. The attempt was unpaid, and in such a case I think that a purchaser is bound to successful ; but as, in giving judgment, Mr. Justice FIELD is inquire.” And BRETT, L.J., says: “It seems to me that, as a reported to have said that he " never heard before that relief in general rule, the question (whether there are debts existing] an action for slander cannot be given in a county court," it may should not be asked within twenty years, but that after be well to consider the effect of the statutes upon the subject. In twenty years it will be right to ask the question.” These the first place, the 58th section of the County Court Act, 1846, observations have been understood in some quarters as being expressly excludes actions of slander, amongst others, from the as of general application to all cases of sales by executors. jurisdiction of the county court, so that Mr. Justice FIELD's Thus in Lewin on Trusts, 8th ed., p. 481, under the head of “ex- observation was rather too extensive. But section 10 of the ecutors' receipts," it is said “the rule has now been adopted County Court Act, 1867, allows any defendant against whom an that, after twenty years, it is fair to presume that the debts have action of slander may be brought in a superior court to obtain an been paid, and the onus is upon the executors to shew that such order (which it is in the discretion of a judge to make or refuse ; is not the case.
This, it appears, is not the view of Mr. Justice Lea v. Parker, 13 Q. B. D. 835) remitting such action to the Kay, the learned judge whose decision was reversed by the Court county court, unless the plaintiff give security for costs or satisfy of Appeal in Re Tanqueray-Willaume and Landau. In a case of the judge that he has a cause of action fit to be prosecuted in a Re Whistler and Richardson, reported elsewhere, he laid it down superior court. Then section 67 of the Judicature Act, 1873, that the rule did not apply to an executor selling leaseholds. The enacts that the provisions of the 10th section of the County law gave him the right to deal with the assets and “there was no Court Act, 1867, “ shall apply to all actions commenced in the authority for saying that that power ceased after twenty years.” High Court of Justice in which any relief is sought which can This decision accords with the judgment of Lord MANSFIELD in Whale be given in a county court.” As Lord BLACKBURN said in Garnett v. Booth (4 T. R. 625 note), where he says, “The general rule both Bradley (26 W. R. 698, 3 App. Cas., at pp. 971—2) this section of law and equity is clear, that an executor may dispose of the is “ somewhat curiously worded," but if it were to be taken to assets of the testator; that over them he has an absolute power; exclude actions of slander from the 10th section of the Act of and that they cannot be followed by the testator's creditors. 1867, the result would be to repeal that section so far as slander
It is also clear that, if, at the time of alienation, the pur- actions are concerned, which not only could not have been inchaser knows that they are assets, this is no evidence of fraud ; tended, but could not have been done without more express words.
or all the testator's debts may have been already satisfied; or, if he knows that the debts were not all satisfied, must he look to the application of the money? No one would buy on such terms."
SOLICITOR-TRUSTEES' COSTS. WE RECENTLY discussed one of the questions decided in Morgan
I. v. Hardy (35 W. R. 588, 18 Q. B. D. 646). Another question of It is a well-known rule of law that a solicitor who is also a considerable practical importance, but not, we think, at all trustee cannot make any charge against the estate for professional doubtful on principle, was decided on the appeal. The action work that he may do in connection with it. An exception, howwas for breach of a covenant in a lease to keep and yield ever, exists where the work is done by the solicitor, not as acting up buildings in repair. The lease was granted in 1833, and for himself, but as acting on behalf of his co-trustees. This the defendant alleged that the buildings and the sur- exception has been the subject of recent discussion in the case of rounding property had greatly diminished in marketable value Re Corsellis, Lawton v. Elwes (35 W. R. 309, 34 Ch. D. 675), and it since the making of the lease, and that in consequence of such has received from the Court of Appeal a sanction, based
its diminution in value a great portion of the repairs mentioned in the long establishment, which now makes it practically invincible. plaintiffs' particulars were not suited to the demised premises, At the same time, it is subject in turn to the exception that it and were unnecessary for their use and enjoyment; that the applies only to costs incurred in connection with business done in proper measure of damages in the action was the actual loss to an action or proceeding in court. the plaintiffs' reversion, and that the assessment ought to be limited to those items in the plaintiffs' particulars which would be position that a trustee is not entitled to be paid for his trouble.
It is not necessary to quote any authority for the general productive of advantage to the plaintiffs, and would improve the This is often put upon the ground that he is not allowed to make value of the premises as they were at present used; or, in other a profit out of his office, but it was pointed out by Lord Cranworth words, that the damages should be limited to the amount which in Broughton v. Broughton (5 D. M. & G. 164) that this statement would be expended by a prudent and reasonable man in repairing of the rule is not wide enough.
“The rule really is, that no one the premises 80 to be productive of remuneration. referee to whom the question of the amount of damages was referred have his interests conflicting with his duty.” It was from a
The who has a duty to perform shall place himself in a situation to reported that on the one view the damages should be assessed at fortunate failure to see this that the exception in question arost. £1,680, and on the other view at £1,200. In principle Rawlings The matter is explained very clearly in New v. Jones (note to v. Morgan (13 W. R. 746, 18 C. B. N. s. 776) appears to be a Cradock v. Piper, 1 M. & G. 668, and 9 Byth. Jarm. 338), the judgments in that case shew that a jury is not bound to give only two cases were quoted in argument which had been recently nominal damages for breach of a covenant to repair Salthough decided in Chancery, and in which a trustee, who was a solicitor, before the end of the term the lessor had agreed with another had been allowed his professional charges. person to grant him a lease under which the premises were to be apparently, it had been held that there was notbing to prevent a ordinary damages would be the amount which would be necessary On the other side it was stated that the general opinion in the to put them in a proper state of repair. The right to damages profession was the other way, and that a solicitor was not allowed intention to pull down the premises would not in the least affect Lyndhurst said that it was the "Luty of the trustee or executed to his right to sue for full damages.se* pr the fact that the demisek benthe guardians of the estate committed to his charge, and its recover full damages, a fortiori va mere deterioration in the chat we the estate, vahele to claime compensation for his service og acter of the neighbourhood could not do so. the defendant's proposition was
wholly untenable," and that prudence, the court did not allow the executor or trustee to place 'every case was to the exact contrary.”
himself in that situation. The only question, therefore, was as to
transacted for the estate, and were to be paid for the performance Cradock v. Piper had never been adopted in the House of Lords, of it, it would, the learned Chancellor said, be placing his interests at and stated that he had great doubts of the soundness of the decision variance with the duties he had to discharge.
to the lengths to which it goes. So in Broughton v. Broughton (5 The matter was one, of course, which affected a large body of D. M. & G. 160) Lord Cranworth said that as every trustee is persons, by whom, in most cases, the trust business could be better bound to protect the estate against improper charges, there must exist and more conveniently done than by anyone else, but who could the same difficulty in principle in his acting for himself and others not afford to give the necessary time and labour gratuitously, and as in acting for himself alone. This being so, no one will be surwho were conscious, moreover, that the authors of their trust prised to find that in the case of Re Corsellis Mr. Justice Kay strained would certainly have themselves raised no objection to their being every nerve to cut down the exception in Cradock v. Piper to its remunerated. And over and above this, there did appear to be one narrowest limits, though we must reserve the manner in which he circumstance which made it less necessary for the court to be as did this, as well as the opposite course which the Court of Appeal strict with solicitors as with ordinary trustees. Their bills might felt itself bound to take, for our next article. be taxed, and if the estate lost, in any degree, the protection of the There are, however, two points which may properly be alluded trustee, it would gain that of the taxing master. But so far from to here. When the costs of an action are given in favour of fa allowing this to be a reason in favour of the solicitor, the court solicitor-trustee, the decree does not, in terms, cut them down to actually took possession of it as an additional safeguard for the disbursements out of pocket, and disallow professional charges. trust. The estate had a right, it was said, not only to the This is a matter of the construction of the decree, and is left to the protection of the taxing master, but also to the vigilance and discretion of the taxing master. So it was decided in York v. guardianship of the trustee, who, if he were allowed to perform the Brown (1 Coll. 260). In Cradock v. Piper Lord Cottenham duties of a solicitor, and to be paid for them, might often find it expressed his surprise at the practice, and made special inquiry as proper to institute and carry on legal proceedings which he would to whether it had been uniformly adopted. Finding that this was not do were he to derive no emolument from them and were he to so, he refrained from interfering with it in any way, although he employ another person. The court, in fact, adopted and acted on seemed to retain his opinion that the discretion was a larger one the Johnsonian view of the character and propensities of an than was really warranted by the terms of the order, inasmuch as attorney.
the taxing master did not really tax the costs at all, but simply In New v. Jones, as in other cases, however, the court was disallowed them. The other point which had to be decided related careful to observe that it cast no imputation upon the to the manner of separating the solicitor-trustee's costs from those solicitor before it. The object was to restrain the generally of his co-trustees. Supposing there were four trustees altogether, wicked tendencies of the great mass of solicitors. Thus, in and the costs were £40, the amount being in no way increased by Moore v. Frowd (3 M. & C. 45), it was said that it was not the appearance of the solicitor-trustee himself, is the £40 to be because the trust estate is, in any particular case, charged with divided among the four, and £10 to be disallowed as being the more than it might otherwise have been, but that the principle, if costs incurred by the solicitor-trustee acting on his own behalf ? allowed, would lead to such consequences in general. În Fraser v. It was held that such a procedure would not give him all that he Palmer (4 Y. & C. 515) the court based the rule on an anxious is entitled to-viz., the whole costs of appearing for the co-trustees. desire for the reputation of solicitors as well as for the safety of the If, however, the whole amount is at all increased by his appearing estate. After pointing out, in the usual way, the conflict between on his own behalf, then these additional costs will be disallowed. duty and interest that it is supposed must ensue if a trustee who was a solicitor were allowed to charge for his trouble, Baron Alderson went on to remark: “It has been said that the attorney in this case is respectable ; it may be so, but it is in order that
CASES OF THE WEEK. attorneys may be respectable that they sustain the loss."
It is very clear then that, as was pointed out in Broughton v. CALVERT v. THOMAS AND LLOYD-O. A. No. 1, 14th June. Broughton, the principle upon which a solicitor-trustee is debarred Bill of SALE-Validity—“Expenses INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE from receiving compensation for his trouble is not fully expressed SECURITY”—CONVEYANCING ACT, 1881 (44 & 45 Viet. C. 41) s. 19in the maxim that a trustee is not to make a profit by his trust,
BILLS OF SALE Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. C. 43) 8. 9-FORM IN
SCHEDULE. but rather we must go to the reason for the maxim itself—viz., that a trustee is not to put himself in any position in which his the defendants were execution creditors. The bill of sale, dated the 1st of
Interpleader issue in which the plaintiff was a bill of sale holder and private interests may conflict with his duty. In deciding Cradock June, 1886, was given as security for a loan, and, after conferring on the v. Piper (1 M. & G. 668) Lord Cottenham did not see that this mortgagee'a power of seizure and sale on default (inter alia) in payment, was the effect of New v. Jones. Starting from the principle that contained this clause :-“And it is hereby declared that the mortgagee a trustee cannot be permitted to make a profit of his office, he shall, with and out of the moneys to arise from any such sale as aforesaid, pointed out that he would do this if, being a party to a cause as relation to this security.” A. L. Smith, J., held that this clause went trustee, he were permitted, being also a solicitor, to derive pro- beyond the form in the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, and that the bill of sale was fessional profits from acting for himself as such party. Reviewing void. It was contended on behalf of the bill of sale holder that this these the solicitor's work in question had been done by him when 1881, and that the majority of the full Court of Appeal in Re Morritt (35 he was thus acting for himself as trustee. Moreover, he found W. R. 277, 18 Q. B. D. 222) had held that the power of sale in the Conthat in Fraser v. Palmer the solicitor-trustee had been allowed excluded in any particular bill of sale. That was the view of Re Morritt his costs in an action where he appeared for the cestuis que trust. taken by Bowen and Fry, L.JJ., in Watkins v. Evans (35 w. R. 313, 18 cases where the solicitor-trustee was acting for himself in his this bill of sale by the express power of sale given, but the clause in edity of trustee. Now, in the case before him the noticitör haia question was not inconsistent with the form acted, not only for himself, but also for his co-trustees. Since, desired once more to express his opinion that the Conveyancing Act was parties in suits relative to the trust property, it is clear that, in wholly inconsistent with it. His view was that all the judges of the acting for these latter, he was fulfilling no part of his proper duty opinion. What was stated by Bowen and Fry, L.JJ., in Watkins v. had never been extended, and he declined to take the initiative in clause sinned against the form because it had a larger legal effect than doing so. He seems, therefore, to have been unconscious that he that contained in the form ; it would cover expenses incurred before the was making any exception to an established rule, but rather to execution of the deed. LINDLEY, L.J., said that he was surprised to see have thought that he had refrained from extending it. But how it of the Morrite that the power of sale in the Conveyancing Act was incor; can be possible to allow him (the solicitor-trustee) his costs in such porated in the statutory form. His view was that the Conveyancing Act hoeunderstand and to this inconsistency attention has frequently but that it was impossible to introduce into the form in that Act the I. L. C. 80), Lord Brougham pointed out that the decision in they would enable the mortgagee to saddle the mortgagor with unknown