GRAHAM, ROWLAND MOYSES, Gt Grimsby, Newsagent. June 15 at 12. Off Rec, 16, Wood st, Bolton June 13 at 11. Off Rec, HAMMOND. ISAAC, Brighton, Grocer. June 13 at 12. Off Rec, 4, Pavilion bldgs, Brighton HARRISON, ROBSON, Tibthorpe, Yorks, Farmer. June 10 at 1. Off Rec, York HOLMES, BENJAMIN, Otley, Yorks, Coal Merchant. June 13 at 12. Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds JOHNSON, EDWIN, Swallowfield, Berks, Farmer. June 30 at 11.30. Queen's Hotel, Reading KINDRED, GEORGE, Consett, Durham, Draper. June 14 at 10.30. Off Rec, Pink lane, Newcastle on Tyne LANGWORTHY, EDWARD MARTIN, address unknown. June 15 at 12. st, Lincoln's iun MAGNER, SELIG, Kingston upon Hull, General Dealer. June 16 at 2. ated Law Society. Lincoln's inn bldgs, Bowlalley lane. Hull MARCHANT, ROBERT MUDGE, Canonbury villas, Islington, Engineer. 12. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn 33, Carey Incorpor June 10 at MIDGLEY, JOHN, jun, Bradford, Bootmaker. June 10 at 11. Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford MORGAN, EDWIN. Newbury, Berks, Stonemason. June 29 at 12.30. Cottrell & Johnston, 79, North Brook st, Newbury NORRIS, WILLIAM HENRY, Bracknell, Berks, Builder. June 10 at 2. White PARR. ALFRED, Reading, no occupation. June 30 at PRESCOTT, JOHN RICHARD, Preston, Grocer. June 13 at 3. 1.30. Queen's Hotel, Off Rec, 14, Chapel st, Preston PROUDLOVE, WILLIAM, West Brampton, Newcastle under Lyme, Builder. June 16 at 4. Off Rec, Newcastle under Lyme SHILCOCK, JOHN, Leicester, Corn Dealer. June 10 at 12. 28, Friar lane, Leicester SOUTHALL, DAVID, Edgbaston, Warwickshire, Fish Dealer. June 15 at 11. 25, Colmore row, Birmingham STIDDER, JAMES GEORGE, Southwark Bridge rd, Engineer. June 10 at 11. Bankruptcy bldgs, Lincoln's inn SUTCLIFFE, THOMAS, Todmorden, Yorkshire, Warp Sizer. June 10 at 3.30. Queen's Hotel, Todmorden SWINFORD, JOHN, Cheltenham, Whitesmith. June 11 at 3.30. County Court, Cheltenham TAYLOR, EDWARD, Birmingham, Drysalter. June 14 at 11. 25, Colmore row, Birmingham THOMAS, CATHERINE, Hakin, Milford Haven, Sailmaker. June 11 at 11. Off Rec, 11. Quay st, Carmarthen TINSLEY, WILLIAM, Catherine st, Strand, Publisher. June 10 at 11. Bankruptcy bldgs, Lincoln's inn TOMBS. EDWARD, Shilton, near Burford, Oxfordshire, Farmer. June 18 at 11.30. Off Rec, 1, St Aldates, Oxford WALKER, CHARLES HARRY, Cobridge, Staffs, Grocer. June 10 at 11. Royal Hotel, Crewe WYLDE, JOSEPH, Nantwich, Cheshire, Grocer. June 10 at 12. Royal Hotel, Crewe DAVEY, GEORGE, Neath, Switchman. Neath. Pet June 1. SLIGHT, JOHN BULLIVANT, King's Lynn, Clerk in Holy Orders. King's Lynn. SOUTHALL, DAVID, Edgbaston, Warwickshire, Fish Dealer. Birmingham Pet May 25. Ord June 1 THOMAS, DAVID, Carmarthen, General Merchant. Carmarthen. Pet May 25. WARWICK, HENRY, Gt Suffolk st, Borough, Bootmaker. High Court. Pet May June 2 CLAY, ARTHUR EDWIN, Gt Yarmouth. Confectioner. Gt Yarmouth. Pet June 2. Ord June 2 COLE, GEORGE, Swansea, Boot Maker. Swansea. Pet June 3. Ord June 3 COOPER, WILLIAM WALDREN, Kegworth, Leicestershire, Grocer. Leicester. COPE, JOHN, Rhuddal Heath, nr Tarporley, Cheshire, Joiner. Nantwich and 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. HOGGART, WILLIAM, Leeds, Grocer. Leeds. Pet June 2. Ord June 2 JONES, JOHN, Lambeth Walk, Fruiterer. High Court. Pet June 2. Ord June 2 PHELPS, FREDERICK, Gower pl, Euston rd, Publican. High Court. Pet May 14. PLANE, HURRANE JOHN, Wivenhoe, Essex, no occupation. Colchester. Pet May 7. Ord June 4 DE GRUCHY, JAMES EDWARD, Crescent rd, South Norwood pk, Printer. High RAW, HENRY THORNTON, Furnival's inn, Solicitor. High Court. Pet Feb 22. Ord Court. Pet March 29. Ord May 28 DORR, GEORGE MICHAEL, Tunstall, Staffs, Grocer. Hanley, Burslem, and Tunstall. Pet May 28. Ord June 1 FOSBROOKE, CHARLES EDWARD, Water lane, Lower Thames st, Shipping Agent. GREEN, JOHN, Bolton, Lancs, Grocer. Bolton. Pet May 19. Ord June 1 HEATON, JAMES, Canning Town, Essex, Tailor. High Court. Pet May 6. Ord HOPKINS, EDWARD, Church road, Stoke Newington, out of busines. Poole. Pet May 19. Ord May 28 KNIGHT, JAMES, Windsor ter, Holloway rd, Dealer in Oriental Goods. High Court. Pet May 25. Ord May 31 LAZARUS, SAMUEL, Hatton garden, Optician. High Court. Pet March 25. Ord LLEWELYN, THOMAS, EDWARD LLEWELYN, and DAVID LLEWELYN, Ystradyfodwg, MAYON, WILLIAM, Birmingham, Furniture Dealer. Birmingham. Pet May 21. MELLOR, THOMAS, Sheffield, Grocer. Sheffield. Pet May 5. Ord May 27 PARET, JOHN PAUL, Great Sutton st, Artificial Flower Manufacturer. High PERKINS, THOMAS WALTER, Chepstow, Mon, Grocer. Newport, Mon. Pat May 26. Ord June 1 PINCH. CHARLES, Cambridge rd, Mile End, Easy Chair Maker. High Court. PRESCOTT, JOHN RICHARD, Preston, Grocer. Preston. Pet May 26. Ord May 26 ROBERTS. JOHN, Bournemouth, House Decorator. Poole. Pet May 13. Ord May 31 SKEAVINGTON, JAMES DRUMMOND, and JAMES SKEAVINGTON, Ilkeston, Derbyshire, Lace Makers. Derby. Pet May 12. Ord May 31 June 3 RICHARDS, EDWIN, Maindee, nr Newport, Mon, Commission Agent. Newport, Mon. Pet June 3. Ord June 3 June 2 TILDESLEY, THOMAS, Newport, Salop, Grocer. SMITH, SAMUEL, Scarborough, Stonemason. Scarborough. Pet June 2. Ord June 3 WHITELEY, WILLIAM HENRY, and THOMAS THORTON, Huddersfield, Dyers. WILSON, JOHN PATERSON, Birkenhead, Licensed Victualler. Birkenhead. Pet 21. Ord June 2 ing BARNETT, CHARLES, Pembroke Dock, Grocer. June 14 at 11. Off Rec, 11, Quay st, Carmarthen BILLINGHAM, WALTER, Brierley Hill, Staffordshire, Brewers' Drayman. June 14 at 3.15. Talbot Hotel, Stourbridge BONIFACE, WILLIAM JOHN, and HENRY GEORGE BONIFACE, Southampton, Cabinet Makers. June 15 at 2.30. Off Rec, 4. East st, Southampton BROWN, WILLIAM, High st, Stoke Newington. Draper. June 15 at 11. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields CLAY, ARTHUR EDWIN, Gt Yarmouth, Confectioner. June 15 at 11. Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich COLE, GEORGE, Swansea, Bootmaker. June 15 at 11. Off Rec, 6, Rutland st, Swansea COOK, JOHN, Fox st. New Brompton, Coffee Van Driver. June 16 at 11.30. Off Rec. High st, Rochester COOKE, PHILIP, Church row, Wandsworth, Chemist. June 20 at 2. 109, Victoria st, Westminster ton sq, Birkenhead COSEDGE, HIRAM, Old Serjeant's inn. Chancery lane, Solicitor. June 14 at 11. HALL. GEORGE, Sheffield, Draper. June 15 at 11.30. Off Rec, Figtree lane, Leominster HUNT, TOM OLIVER, Leominster, Surgeon. Rec, 3, Crockberbtown, Cardiff LEWIS, CHARLES, Old Town, Croydon. June 20 at 12. 109, Victoria st, West- PLOMLEY, WILLIAM, Peasmarsh, Sussex, Veterinary Surgeon. June 15 at 1. POWELL, THOMAS, Hodnet. nr Market Drayton, Farmer. June 14 at 10.30. Corbet Arms Hotel, Market Drayton PRICE. JOHN, Nottingham, Builder. June 14 at 12. Off Rec, 1, High pavement, Nottingham RANDLE, ARTHUR, Fillongley, Warwick, Baker. June 15 at 12. Off Rec, 17, Hertford st, Coventry RUFFY, ELIZABETH LOUISA, Geddington, Northampton, Spinster. June 16 at 4. Royal Hotel, Kettering SCHOFIELD, SAMUEL ROBERT, Coleman st, Financial Agent. June 15 at 11. 33, Carey st. Lincoln's inn SHEFFIELD, THOMAS NEEDHAM, Wandle rd, Upper Tooting, Solicitor. June 14 at 12. Bankruptcy bags, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields SHERSON, ERROLL HS, Longridge rd, Earl's ct, Gent. June 16 at 2.30. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn SLANEY, WILLIAM, Kirkby in Ashfield, Nottingham, Baker. June 14 at 11. Off Rec. 1, High pavement, Nottingham SMITH, SAMUEL, Scarborough, Stonemason. June 14 at 11. Off Rec, 74, Newborough st, Scarborough STRATFORD. HENRY VERNER WINGFIELD, and FRANCIS MERVYN WINGFIELD STRATFORD, Brandon st, Bermondsey. June 16 at 11. Bankruptcy bldngs, Lincoln's inn fields WATSON, WALTER HENRY, and JOHN SIMPSON STEEL, Lilliput rd. Victoria Docks. Hardware Merchants. June 14 at 11. Bankruptcy bldngs, Lincoln's inn fields WHITEWAY, ROBERT, Liverpool, Cab Proprietor. June 15 at 3. Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool WILLIAMS, CECIL HENRY JOHN, Portland st. June 16 at 12. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn WILLOUGHBY, EDWIN THOMAS, Jamaica rd, Bermondsey, Printer. June 15 at 2.30. 83. Carey st, Lincoln's inn YEOMAN, HENRY SHEPPARD. Frome, Somersetshire, Draper. June 17 at 12.45. Great Western Hotel, Paddington ADJUDICATIONS. BAKER. HENRY WILLIAM, Hamilton rd, Grove rd, Bow, Tobacco Pipe Maker. High Court. Pet May 31. Ord June 3 BUCKLE, WILLIAM, Leeds, Tea Dealer. Leeds. Pet June 2. Ord June 2 BURTON, GEORGE, Green st, Bethnal Green, Leather Merchant. High Court. Pet May 23. Ord June 2 CLAY, ARTHUR EDWIN, Great Yarmouth, Confectioner. Great Yarmouth. Pet June 2. Ord June 2 COOK, JOHN, New Brompton, Kent, Coffee Van Driver. Rochester. Pet June 2. Ord June 2 DAVIES. DAVID WALTER, Blaenau Festiniog, Merionethshire, Grocer. Bangor. Pet April 16. Ord June 4 DAWES, EORGE AUGUSTUS, Instow, Devon, Gent. Barnstaple. Pet May 23. Ord June 2 DOVE, JOHN, New Clee, Lincolnshire, Smack Owner. Great Grimsby. Pet June 1. Ord June 1 FAULTY, WILLIAM, Aldershot, Grocer. Guildford and Godalming. Pet May 28. Ord June 2 FLINT, JAMES CLIFFORD, Solon rd, Brixton, Clerk. High Court. Pet May 25. Órd June 2 SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA. Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted. The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children." Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps for years in all climates, and is four times the strength cf cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures. Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited. In tins at 1s. 6d., 38., 58. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocers. Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietor, H. SCHWEITZER & Co., 10, Adam-st., Strand, London, W.C. June 4 June 2 SLANEY, WILLIAM, Kirkby in Ashfield, Nottingham, Baker. Nottingham. Pet WILSON, JOHN PATERSON, Birkenhead, Licensed Victualler. Birkenhead. Pet June 3 WYATT, JOHN, Coleford, out of business. Newport, Mon. Pet May 18. Ord 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. WHITING, BENJAMIN WILSON, Diss, Norfolk, Builder. Ipswich. Pet May 18. Ord May 18 ADJUDICATIONS ANNULLED. HIGGS, JAMES, Oxford, Cab Proprietor. Oxford. Adjud Feb 23. Annul May 19 ROSE, DAVID, WILLIAN NAPOLEON ROSE, and ARTHUR THOMAS FREDERICK ROSE, Moxley, Stafford, Ironmasters. Walsall. Adjud May 22, 1885. 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. FORD.-June 7, at Streatham, the wife of Edward Ford, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. MOLONEY.-May 30, at Stamford-road, Kensington, Ada, the wife of M. Moloney, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. AUSTIN-ROE.-June 1, William Austin, of Luton, solicitor, to Minnie, daughter of John Chambers Roe, of Norwich. HOPE-DALE.-June 1, Collingwood Hope, barrister-at-law, to Alice Therese, daughter of Robert Norris Dale, of Bromborough Hall, Cheshire. NASH-JACKSON.-June 1, William Harry Nash, barrister-at-law, to Caroline Maude, daughter of Captain Milbourne Jackson, R.N. DEATHS. JOHNSON.-May 30, George Johnson, of 7, King's Bench-walk, Temple, aged 75 years. ROUSE.-June 2, at Melton, Suffolk, Rolla Rouse, barrister-at-law, in his 82nd SHELTON.-May 27, at Southsea, George Lane Shelton, solicitor, aged 72 years. year. THE COUNTRY LAW SOCIETIES ON THE LAND TRANSFER BILL LEGAL NEWS COURT PAPERS... WINDING-UP NOTICES CREDITORS' NOTICES .................................... 551 BANKRUPTCY NOTICES UNTEARABLE LETTER COPYING BOOKS. (HOWARD'S PATENT.) 1,000 Leaf Book, 5s. 6d. 500 Leaf Book, 3s. 6d. English made. THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OUT. WODDERSPOON & CO., 7, 8ERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET, LINCOLN'S INN, W.O. Newman & Co. v. Pinto & Sons.... 558 Pereira, Re 560 Roberts, Re, Evans v. Thomas.... 558 Somerset. Re 559 Whistler and Richardson, Re .... In the Weekly Reporter. Clarke v. Thornton ........ 559 .. 603 ... 610 Cooke's Estate, In re ...... 608 Herbert, In re .... Mallet v. Hanley and Another 606 Mr. C. F. BRICKDALE's letter to the Times (which we reprint elsewhere) will shew what we meant when we said last week that, "as matters stand at present, the probable result to solicitors of the passing of the Land Transfer Bill will be-first, a considerable increase of profits, but subsequently, a most unreasonable and unnecessary diminution." It has always been assumed that on the first registration of land the solicitor will be entitled to his full scale fee in addition to the fee allowed to him in connection with registration, and as it will be observed that Mr. BRICKDALE does 601 not refer in any way to the costs of first registration, it may probably be taken that the general expectation will prove to be correct. The added registration fee will be the source of the increased profits on first registration. Mr. BRICKDALE's letter may, however, be taken to shew that, on dealings with land after the first registration, this latter fee is intended to be the only fee to be allowed to solicitors; and the amount of the diminution of which we spoke, on dealings with land after the first registration, may be estimated by taking a purchase for £3,000, on which the 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 697 607 York, In re, Atkinson v. Powell.. 609 The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. LONDON, JUNE 18, 1887. CURRENT TOPICS. Mr. JOHN WA AINEWRIGHT, 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. AN ORDER which we print in another column transfers 100 causes to Mr. Justice KEKEWICH for the purpose only of hearing or trial; of this number 30 are taken from the list of Mr. Justice CHITTY, 40 from that of Mr. Justice NORTH, and 30 from that of Mr. Justice STIRLING. PERHAPS IT WOULD only be consistent with propriety that the deliberations of the committee now sitting to devise a scheme for amalgamating the duties of some of the Chancery officers should remain secret until the committee have arrived at a conclusion. But it somehow happens that little matters do occasionally ooze out, and it is now stated to be a question whether the committee shall separate without making any report, or whether they shall report that they are unable to agree to any scheme. Few members of the profession will be surprised to hear this; the general opinion appears to be that the present division of labour which prevails in the Chancery offices cannot be materially altered so as to increase the efficiency of the several departments. It is also urged that, if the cost of the appointment of an extra judge had not been brought forward, no attempt would have been made to act upon the resolutions of Lord SELBORNE'S Committee respecting the Chancery offices, and that no reduction can be made which will provide the sum required. It may be hoped that the present committee will adopt the suggestion recently offered them in these columns, and express to the Lord Chancellor the opinion that no change is advisable. A NEW PRACTICE which has recently been adopted by Mr. Justice NORTH does not at first sight commend itself as tending to convenience. It is shortly this:-"In drawing up an order made by 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 before him. The inconvenience of omitting all mention of the evidence in such cases is, however, more apparent than real. It appears that the taxing master will on taxation take note of all the evidence adduced and not read, much in the same manner as he would take note of the expenses of necessary witnesses subpoenaed but not called. But upon the whole the old practice appears to be the best. If the evidence is set out in the order, any dispute as to its having been brought forward is set at rest, and the taxing master is assisted to that extent. It is true that a principle is involved in the question whether on a consent order the evidence should be read; but no court would allow an order taken by consent to be disturbed simply on the ground that the evidence had not been weighed by the court pronouncing the order. The rule above mentioned was adopted by Mr. Justice NORTH on the 10th inst. on an application to vary minutes in a case of Blakey v. Shaw. to say, instead of £70 coming to the profession, £8 8s. will be received by the purchaser's solicitor. When the Bill was first introduced we drew special attention to this question of the remuneration of solicitors on dealings with land subsequent to the first registration; perhaps Mr. BRICKDALE's statistics may be more effectual in dispelling the apathy which seems hitherto to have existed on this subject. LANDOWNERS will not have a heavy burden entailed upon them by the new clause for compulsory redemption of small sums of tithe rent-charge which was inserted in the Tithe Rent Charge Bill by the Bishop of London, and has been hailed with great satisfaction by the clergy. By the clause in question it is proposed "that where the total amount of tithe rent-charge which is charged on the lands of the same owner does not exceed two pounds, the person for the time being entitled to the tithe rent-charge may require such owner to redeem the same by payment to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners either of a capital sum equal to twenty-one times the amount of the rent-charge or of an annuity for fifty-two years calculated at the rate of £1 16s. for every £2 of tithe rentcharge." Unless, therefore, an owner has land in more parishes than one, he will not be called upon to pay more than £42, and even then he has the choice of paying by an annuity-an alternative in which we do not see much advantage except to the clergy, who will get the benefit of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as agents to recover the annual payments due to them. It may be 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 each division of land under building leases, each separate plot, and, if the Bill should pass, the owner of each separate plot, would be liable for a minute proportion of the tithe. THE RULE laid down by JESSEL, M.R., in Re Tanqueray-Willaume and Landau (30 W. R. 801, 20 Ch. D. 465)—that after twenty years from a testator's death it must be presumed that his debts have been paid-is now well known, but considerable doubt has existed with regard to the application of the rule. Is : 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 case in which it was laid down, executors, in whom the legal fee was vested, were selling real estate charged with debts; but there appears to be nothing in the judgments to limit the application of the rule to those circumstances. JESSEL, M.R., says, "The only remaining point is what period of time is sufficient to raise a presumption that the debts have been paid. in my opinion the reasonable period is twenty years. Where you find a beneficiary in possession and twenty years have elapsed, I think it is fair to presume that the debts have been paid, and in such a case I think that a purchaser is bound to inquire." And BRETT, L.J., says: "It seems to me that, as a general rule, the question whether there are debts existing] should not be asked within twenty years, but that after twenty years it will be right to ask the question." These observations have been understood in some quarters as being as of general application to all cases of sales by executors. Thus in Lewin on Trusts, 8th ed., p. 481, under the head of " executors' receipts," it is said "the rule has now been adopted that, after twenty years, it is fair to presume that the debts have been paid, and the onus is upon the executors to shew that such is not the case." This, it appears, is not the view of Mr. Justice KAY, the learned judge whose decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal in Re Tanqueray-Willaume and Landau. In a case of Re Whistler and Richardson, reported elsewhere, he laid it down that the rule did not apply to an executor selling leaseholds. The law gave him the right to deal with the assets and "there was no authority for saying that that power ceased after twenty years." This decision accords with the judgment of Lord MANSFIELD in Whale v. Booth (4 T. R. 625 note), where he says, "The general rule both of law and equity is clear, that an executor may dispose of the assets of the testator; that over them he has an absolute power; and that they cannot be followed by the testator's creditors. It is also clear that, if, at the time of alienation, the purchaser knows that they are assets, this is no evidence of fraud; 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.' WE RECENTLY discussed one of the questions decided in Morgan v. Hardy (35 W. R. 588, 18 Q. B. D. 646). Another question of considerable practical importance, but not, we think, at all doubtful on principle, was decided on the appeal. The action was for breach of a covenant in a lease to keep and yield up buildings in repair. The lease was granted in 1833, and the defendant alleged that the buildings and the surrounding property had greatly diminished in marketable value since the making of the lease, and that in consequence of such diminution in value a great portion of the repairs mentioned in the plaintiffs' particulars were not suited to the demised premises, and were unnecessary for their use and enjoyment; that the proper measure of damages in the action was the actual loss to the plaintiffs' reversion, and that the assessment ought to be limited to those items in the plaintiffs' particulars which would be productive of advantage to the plaintiffs, and would improve the value of the premises as they were at present used; or, in other words, that the damages should be limited to the amount which would be expended by a prudent and reasonable man in repairing the premises so as to be productive of remuneration. The referee to whom the question of the amount of damages was referred reported that on the one view the damages should be assessed at £1,680, and on the other view at £1,200. In principle Rawlings v. Morgan (13 W. R. 746, 18 C. B. N. S. 776) appears to be a conclusive authority against the defendants' contention. The judgments in that case shew that a jury is not bound to give only nominal damages for breach of a covenant to repair although before the end of the term the lessor had agreed with another person to grant him a lease under which the premises were to be pulled down. MONTAGUE SMITH, J., says (p. 784): "The ordinary damages would be the amount which would be necessary to put them in a proper state of repair. The right to damages having accrued on the determination of the term, the lessor's intention to pull down the premises would not in the least affect his right to sue for full damages." If the fact that the demised premises were to be pulled down did not affect the right to recover full damages, à fortiori a mere deterioration in the character of the neighbourhood could not do so. Lord ESHER said that the defendant's proposition was "wholly untenable," and that 'every case was to the exact contrary." IN A CASE of Stokes v. Stokes last week an attempt was made to argue that section 67 of the Judicature Act, 1873, has taken away the power, which the High Court would otherwise have, of remitting actions for slander to a county court. The attempt was unsuccessful; but as, in giving judgment, Mr. Justice FIELD is reported to have said that he "never heard before that relief in an action for slander cannot be given in a county court," it may be well to consider the effect of the statutes upon the subject. In the first place, the 58th section of the County Court Act, 1846, expressly excludes actions of slander, amongst others, from the jurisdiction of the county court, so that Mr. Justice FIELD'S observation was rather too extensive. But section 10 of the County Court Act, 1867, allows any defendant against whom an action of slander may be brought in a superior court to obtain an order (which it is in the discretion of a judge to make or refuse; Lea v. Parker, 13 Q. B. D. 835) remitting such action to the county court, unless the plaintiff give security for costs or satisfy the judge that he has a cause of action fit to be prosecuted in a superior court. Then section 67 of the Judicature Act, 1873, enacts that the provisions of the 10th section of the County Court Act, 1867," shall apply to all actions commenced in the High Court of Justice in which any relief is sought which can be given in a county court." As Lord BLACKBURN said in Garnett Bradley (26 W. R. 698, 3 App. Cas., at pp. 971-2) this section is "somewhat curiously worded," but if it were to be taken to exclude actions of slander from the 10th section of the Act of 1867, the result would be to repeal that section so far as slander actions are concerned, which not only could not have been intended, but could not have been done without more express words. SOLICITOR-TRUSTEES' COSTS. I. Ir is a well-known rule of law that a solicitor who is also a trustee cannot make any charge against the estate for professional work that he may do in connection with it. An exception, however, exists where the work is done by the solicitor, not as acting for himself, but as acting on behalf of his co-trustees. This exception has been the subject of recent discussion in the case of Re Corsellis, Lawton v. Elwes (35 W. R. 309, 34 Ch. D. 675), and it has received from the Court of Appeal a sanction, based upon its long establishment, which now makes it practically invincible. At the same time, it is subject in turn to the exception that it applies only to costs incurred in connection with business done in an action or proceeding in court. It is not necessary to quote any authority for the general position that a trustee is not entitled to be paid for his trouble. This is often put upon the ground that he is not allowed to make a profit out of his office, but it was pointed out by Lord Cranworth in Broughton v. Broughton (5 D. M. & G. 164) that this statement of the rule is not wide enough. "The rule really is, that no one who has a duty to perform shall place himself in a situation to have his interests conflicting with his duty." It was from a fortunate failure to see this that the exception in question arose. The matter is explained very clearly in New v. Jones (note to Cradock v. Piper, 1 M. & G. 668, and 9 Byth. Jarm. 338), the first case which laid down the principle as applicable to solicitors. Two cases were quoted in argument which had been recently decided in Chancery, and in which a trustee, who was a solicitor, had been allowed his professional charges. In each case, apparently, it had been held that there was nothing to prevent a solicitor from getting such charges if they were properly made. On the other side it was stated that the general opinion in the profession was the other way, and that a solicitor was not allowed to charge for business done by him. In giving judgment, Lord Lyndhurst said that it was the duty of the trustee or executor to be the guardian of the estate committed to his charge, and to watch over its interests; if he was allowed to perform the duties of the estate, and to claim compensation for his services, his interest would then be opposed to his duty; and, as a matter of prudence, the court did not allow the executor or trustee to place himself in that situation. The only question, therefore, was as to 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 persons. If a solicitor were to perform business necessary to be transacted for the estate, and were to be paid for the performance The matter was one, of course, which affected a large body of Cradock v. Piper had never been adopted in the House of Lords, and stated that he had great doubts of the soundness of the decision to the lengths to which it goes. So in Broughton v. Broughton (5 D. M. & G. 160) Lord Cranworth said that as every trustee is bound to protect the estate against improper charges, there must exist the same difficulty in principle in his acting for himself and others as in acting for himself alone. This being so, no one will be surprised to find that in the case of Re Corsellis Mr. Justice Kay strained every nerve to cut down the exception in Cradock v. Piper to its narrowest limits, though we must reserve the manner in which he did this, as well as the opposite course which the Court of Appeal felt itself bound to take, for our next article. There are, however, two points which may properly be alluded to here. When the costs of an action are given in favour of [a solicitor-trustee, the decree does not, in terms, cut them down to disbursements out of pocket, and disallow professional charges. This is a matter of the construction of the decree, and is left to the discretion of the taxing master. So it was decided in York v. Brown (1 Coll. 260). In Cradock v. Piper Lord Cottenham expressed his surprise at the practice, and made special inquiry as to whether it had been uniformly adopted. Finding that this was so, he refrained from interfering with it in any way, although he seemed to retain his opinion that the discretion was a larger one than was really warranted by the terms of the order, inasmuch as 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. In 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 attorneys may be respectable that they sustain the loss." It is very clear then that, as was pointed out in Broughton v. Broughton, the principle upon which a solicitor-trustee is debarred from receiving compensation for his trouble is not fully expressed in the maxim that a trustee is not to make a profit by his trust, 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 private interests may conflict with his duty. In deciding Cradock v. Piper (1 M. & G. 668) Lord Cottenham did not see that this was the effect of New v. Jones. Starting from the principle that a trustee cannot be permitted to make a profit of his office, he pointed out that he would do this if, being a party to a cause as trustee, he were permitted, being also a solicitor, to derive professional profits from acting for himself as such party. Reviewing the cases of New v. Jones and Moore v. Frowd, he found that in these the solicitor's work in question had been done by him when he was thus acting for himself as trustee. Moreover, he found that in Fraser v. Palmer the solicitor-trustee had been allowed his costs in an action where he appeared for the cestuis que trust. Hence he concluded that the rule was not to be extended beyond cases where the solicitor-trustee was acting for himself in his capacity of trustee. Now, in the case before him the solicitor had acted, not only for himself, but also for his co-trustees. Since, however, it is no part of the business of a trustee to assist other parties in suits relative to the trust property, it is clear that, in acting for these latter, he was fulfilling no part of his proper duty as trustee. To a case of this kind Lord Cottenham said the rule had never been extended, and he declined to take the initiative in doing so. He seems, therefore, to have been unconscious that he was making any exception to an established rule, but rather to have thought that he had refrained from extending it. But how it can be possible to allow him (the solicitor-trustee) his costs in such a case, and at the same time approve of New v. Jones, it is not easy to understand and to this inconsistency attention has frequently been called on the bench. Thus, in Manson v. Baillie (2 Mac. H. L. C. 80), Lord Brougham pointed out that the decision in CASES OF THE WEEK. CALVERT v. THOMAS AND LLOYD-C. A. No. 1, 14th June. BILL OF SALE-VALIDITY-"EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SECURITY"-CONVEYANCING ACT, 1881 (44 & 45 VIT. c. 41) s. 19— BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1882 (45 & 46 VICT. c. 43) s. 9-FORM IN Schedule. 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 June, 1886, was given as security for a loan, and, after conferring on the mortgagee a power of seizure and sale on default (inter alia) in payment, contained this clause :-"And it is hereby declared that the mortgagee shall, with and out of the moneys to arise from any such sale as aforesaid, in the first place, pay the expenses attending such sale or otherwise in relation to this security." A. L. Smith, J., held that this clause went beyond the form in the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, and that the bill of sale was void. It was contended on behalf of the bill of sale holder that this clause was practically authorized by section 19 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, and that the majority of the full Court of Appeal in Re Morritt (35 W. R. 277, 18 Q. B. D. 222) had held that the power of sale in the Conveyancing Act was incorporated in the statutory form, unless otherwise excluded in any particular bill of sale. That was the view of Re Morritt taken by Bowen and Fry, L.JJ., in Watkins v. Evans (35 W. R. 313, 18 Q. B. D. 386). Section 19 of the Conveyancing Act was excluded from this bill of sale by the express power of sale given, but the clause in question was not inconsistent with the form. THE COURT dismissed the appeal. Lord ESHER, M.R., said that he desired once more to express his opinion that the Conveyancing Act was not, in any case, incorporated into the statutory form. The form was wholly inconsistent with it. His view was that all the judges of the opinion. What was stated by Bowen and Fry, L.JJ., in Watkins v. Court of Appeal in Re Morritt, except Fry, L.J., were also of that Evans was stated under a misapprehension. In this bill of sale the clause sinned against the form because it had a larger legal effect than that contained in the form; it would cover expenses incurred before the execution of the deed. LINDLEY, L.J., said that he was surprised to see that he was represented in Watkins v. Evans as having agreed in the case of Re Morritt that the power of sale in the Conveyancing Act was incorporated in the statutory form. His view was that the Conveyancing Act applied to bills of sale until the passing of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, but that it was impossible to introduce into the form in that Act the this bill of sale, the latter words of the clause in question were too wide; provisions of the Conveyancing Act. The two were inconsistent. As to they would enable the mortgagee to saddle the mortgagor with unknown |