« PreviousContinue »
of the judgment of North, J., was this, that, though he held that receiving order did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to issue attachment, yet, whenever there was a receiving order in existence, court must decline to issue it. The decision was inconsistent with itself, and there had really been no exercise of discretion.
Ti-is Coca-r or APPEAL (COTTON, Bowair, and Far, L.JJ.) dismissed the appeal without hearing the respondent's counsel. Cor-rou, L.J., said that, if the judge had held that the existence of the receiving order had deprived him of jurisdiction, or that on some other ground there was no case for sending the solicitor to prison, the court would have entertained the appeal. But the judge, assuming that he had jurisdiction, had said that, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and the fact thatareceiving order had been made, the issue of an attachment would produce no good result, and that, in the exercise of his discretion, he would decline to allow it to be issued. His lordship would give no opinion as to what he should himself have done, but he thought it would be wrong for the Court of Appeal to interfere. It was like a case in which, upon a motion to commit a (person for contempt, the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, decline to make an order of committal, but ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the motion. In such a case it would, as ageneral rule, be wrong for the Court of Appeal tointerfere. Ho would not say that the court would not interfere in a very gross case. But in the present case he thought it would be wrong for the Court of Appeal to interfere by imposing on the solicitor a heavier penalty than the judge had thought fit to inflict. Bowen and FRY, L.JJ., concurred. Tnn Counr ordered the costs of the appeal to be set off against the costs which the solicitor had been ordered to pay in the court below. —C0uNsRL, Wm-ringion ; Bunthig. Soucirons, Coll;/er-Bi-istow §- U0. ; Hivkin if For,
Two solicitors, C. and B., having carried on business in partnership, and C. bemg dead, an order for the taxation of costs was, on the application of a client of the firm, made on the 22nd of January against B. and the executors of C. A summons was afterwards taken out by C.’s executors stay all proceedings under the order until alegal personal representative should be appointed to B. It was alleged that B. was dead, His death was not strictly proved, but an English newspaper, published at Buenos Ayi-es, where he was living, was produced, and it contained a statement that B. had died on the 21st of January, the day before the order was made. Kay, J ., refused to stay the proceedings, but he appomtcd the executors of C. to represent the estate of B. for the purposes of the taxation. C.’s executors objected to be appointed to represent B.’s estate, and they appealed from the order.
THE Couar or Arr-EAL (Corron, BowEN, and FRY, L.JJ.) held that an order staying the proeeedmgs ought to have been made, and they discharged the order of hay, J ., and stayed the proceedings until further Order, with libertyto apply. Cor-res, L.J., said that there had been a series of blunders: Under the Solicitors Act an order for taxation could only be made against B., the_si_u'viving partner. The representatives of the deceased partner were willing to be present on the taxation against B.,_ the supposed survivor, but the order was made in a wrong form. The object was that the representatives of C should be present that th y
the the the
. e might see that the taxation was properly conducted. The order ought to have directed a taxation only as against B., and liberty should have bee given to C. s representatives to attend on the taxation, upon their undertaking to be bound by it. It was afterwards alleged that B. was dead. If he was dead at the date of the order, the order was a nullity. But, if he died afterwards, an order ought to have been made to stay the proOeedmgs, he being the only person against whom the taxation could proceed. The judge was probably misled by the form of the order which directed a taxation against the representatives of C. It was a mistake to appoint them to represent B.’s estate. It was wrong under rule 46 of olrder 16 to appoint anyone but the real personal representative to represent t e estate of the person who alone was legally liable; moreover, it was W1‘011_g 10 Bppomt persons to represent the estate who were unwilling to be appointed. Bowsn and Far, L.JJ., concurred.—CouNssL, Dunham ,Ea-stwzck. Soucirons, J. J. Chapman ; Wright 4- 1>,'”,y_
judgment CAvs, J ., said that it was necessary he should say one word with regard to what had occurred in the county court. The application in the county court was supported by an aflidavit of the landlord, in answer to which there was an afildavit of the bankrupt. That being so,
r‘ the landlord asked leave to adduce vied once evidence, but the trustee in
the bankruptcy objected on the ground that there was a decision of his lordship‘s (Ex part: Kearsley §- Co., Re Genrsc) in which he had held that such an application ought to be made beforehand, and not upon the hearing of the motion. His lordship wished to say at once that that decision was not intended to affect the course of business in the county 1 courts. The practice was convenient in the High Court, where he was sitting continuously, and where application could be made to him at any time. That was not so in a county court. Oi course, if parties were taken by surprise, the county court judge would exercise his discretion and act as he thought lit. But the decision given was not intended to apply to courts other than the High Court, and the county court judge was quite right in the present case to allow the vivd vote evidence to be heard.—-COUNs1iL, West; Forbes, Q,.C., and Longatnfie. Somciroas, Barry, Robinson, §- Scott; Goulaon, Dickson, Q Caulsan.
guineas Middle Temple International and Constitutional Law Scholar,
GnAv’s INN.—John Joseph Hayden, Trinity College, Dublin; Arthur
Mr. GEORGE CnAnLEs CHERRY, barrister, died at his residence, Denford House, near Hungerford on the 12th inst. Mr. Cherry was the eldest son of Mr. George Henry Cherry, of Denford House, and was born in 1822. He was educated at Harrow and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated second class in Classics in 1844. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1848, and he formerly practised on the Oxford Circuit. Mr. Cherry was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Berkshire. He was High Sheriff of that county in 1871, and he was deputy-chairman of the Berkshire Quarter Sessions from 1864 till 1885, when he was elected chairman of the court. He was also for many years chairman of the Hungerford Board of Guardians. Mr. Cherry was unmarried. He was buried at Denford on the 17th inst.
Mr. FINLAY Kxionr, one of the registrars in bankruptcy, died a few days ago. Mr. Registrar Knight was the third son of Mr. Charles Knight, of Brighton, and was born in 1823. He was admitted ii solicitor about the year 1847, and he practised for several years at Birmingham. He afterwards entered at the Middle Temple, where he was called to the bar in Hilary Term, 1870. He restricted himself to bankruptcy practice, and he had for over fifteen years a large business. In 1885 Lord Halsbury appointed him a registrar in bankruptcy.
Sir HENRY WATSON PAiucnn, President of the Incoiporated Law Society, who has received the honour of Knighthood, is a Yorkshireman by birth. He came to London early in life, and, after being articled to the late Mr. Robert Few, was admitted a solicitor in Michaelmas Term, 1853. A few years later he joined the then firm of Ellis & Clark, nowrepresented by the firm of Parker, Garrett, & Parker. In 1873 he was elected u member of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. He is a member of the Royal Commission on Loss of Lives at Sea.
Mr. CnAiu.ss BsoiNA.i.n Horrusisrsn, Attorney-General of British
Mr. Faizoiiaicx HARDYMAN PARKER, barrister, has been appointed to olliciateas Attorney-General of the Colony of British Honduras. Mr. Parker is the only son of Mr. \Vil.liam Alexander Parker, formerly Chief Justice of British Honduras. He was called to the bar ‘at the Middle Temple iii June, 1880, and he has been registrar of the Supreme Court of the Colony of British Honduras.
Mr. JAMES RUSSELL, Judge of the Supreme Court at Hang Kong, has been appointed to ofliciate as Chief Justice of that Colony. Mr. Justice Russell is the third son of Mr. John Russell, of Broughshane, Antrim. Ho is an LL.B. of the Queen's University in Ireland, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter '1'erm, 1874. He was coroner of Hong Kong from 1874 till 1879, when he became colonial secretary and Iuperintenclent-registrar. He was appointed a puisne judge in 1834
Mr. W_n.uAn Joux SAnn, solicitor, of Norwich, has been appointed a c0|11l11l88l011€l' to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Mr. JoiiN WATSON STOCKER, solicitor, of 152, Fenchurch-street and of Loo, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the B"Preme Court of J udicatiire.
Mr. HENRY Fox Bmsrowz, Q.O., Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster, has received the honour of Knighthood. ViceChanccllor Bristowe is the second son of Mr. Samuel Ellis Bristowe, of Bceston, Nottinghamshire, and was born in 1824. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1847. He became a Queen’! Counsel in 1869, and he was forseveral years a leader in the court of ViceChancellor Malins. He was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster in 1881. Sir H. Bristowe is a benchcr of the Middle Temple, of which society he was treasurer in 1885.
Mr. Huoa OWEN, barrister, secretary to the Local Government Board, has been created a Civil Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. Sir H. Owen is the eldest son of Sir Hugh Owen, and he was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1862, and he became an assistant secretary to the Local Government Board iu 1876, and secretary to the board in 1883.
Mr. SIDNEY Gooonram Atsxmnsa Snn=i=Aiio, D.C.L., has been created a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sir S. Shippard is the eldest son of Captain William Shippard, and was born in 1838. He is a D.C.L. of Hartford College, Oxford, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1867. He was AttorneyGeneral of Griqualand West from 1876 till 1882, when he was appointed a puisne judge of the Supreme Courtof the Cape Colony.
Mr. WILLIAM Joim FARRBB, solicitor, of 66, Lincoln's-inn-fields, has received the honour of Knighthood. Sir W. Farrer is the son of Mr. Thomas Farrer, and brother of Sir Thomas Henry Farrer, Bart. He was admitted a solicitor in 1849, and he is in partnership with his younger brother, Mr. Frederick Willis Farrer. Sir W. Farror is high bailiff of the city of Westminster, solicitor to the Grenadier Guards, and a director of the Law Life and Law Fire Insurance Society.
Mr. H. P. Jonas, solicitor, of 29, Booth-street, Manchester, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Mr. GODFREY LUSHINGTON, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, has been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath. Mr. Lushington is the fifth son of the Right Hon. Stephen Lushington, Dean of the Arches and judge of the Court of Admiralty, and was bom in 1832. He was educated at Rugby and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in Classics in 1854, and he was afterwards elected a Fellow of All Souls College. He was called to the bur at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1858, and he formerly practised in the Court of Chancery. Mr. Lushington was secretary to the Law Digest Commission, and he became counsel to the Home Olilce in 1869, Assistant Under-Secretary of State in 1876, and Permanent UnderSecretary in 1885.
Mr. HENBY LONGLBY, barrister, has been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath. Mr. Langley is the eldest son of the late Most Reverend Charles Thomas Longley, D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury, and was bom in 1834. He was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated second class in Classics in 1856. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1860, and he formerly practised on the Northem Circuit. Mr. Longley was a Local Government Board Inspector from 1871 till 1874, and he became a Commissioner of Charities in 1874, and Chief Commissioner of Charities in 1885.
The Hon. Si.iNosin' BBTHBLL, barrister, Reading Clerk in the House of Lords, has been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath. Mr. Bethell is the second son of the first Lord Westbury, and was born in 1831. He was educated at University College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1857, and he formerly practised in the Court of Chancery. He was registrar of the Exeter Court of Bankruptcy from 1861 till 1865, when he was appointed Reading Clerk and Clerk of Committees in the House of Lords.
Mr. Ci-xAiu.ss DALRYMPLE, barrister, M.P., has been created a Baronet. Sir C. Dalrymple is the second son of Sir Charles Dalrymple Fergusson, Bart. He was bom in 1839, and he assumed the name of_Dah-ymple by royal licence. He was educated at Harrow, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the third class of the Classical Tripos in 1862. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1865, and he formerly practised on the Northern Circuit. Sir C. Dalrymple was M.P. for Buteshire in the Conservative interest from 1868 till 1885, and he has sat for Ipswich since April, 1886. He was a Lord of tho Treasury from July, 1885, till January, 1886.
Mr. WILLIAM Rosa Pzmuorr, solicitor, of Stony Stratford, has been
Lord BRAMWELL has received the Honorary Degree of LL.D. from the
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
Due APPEAL Counr Arman Counr Mr. Justi Mr. Justice
HIGH COURT OF ]USTICE—CHANCERY DIVISION.
List of actions transferred by order, dated the 14th day of June, 1887, toltlrl. Justice Kekewich, arranged in the order in which they will be hear .
Cresswell, Bankrupt 1886 C 1,120 Nov 22
1,046 Dec 10
In Jre (is;-ulard & Gibbs’ Patent (4,362), Petition of S Z do Perranti 4,362 an
Elwyn v Baldock 1886 E 1,300 Jan 24
In re_Paine, Paine v Paine, Paine v Paine 1886 P 1,122 Jan 26
Birjminggiam, Dudley, 8:0, Banking O0, ld, vItoss, jun 1886 B 3,791 an
Greenway v Sharp
Schadler v Atkins 1886 S 3,973 Mar 7
Woolf v Stafford 1885 W 2,029 Mar 24
Cox v Pardon & Sons 1886 C 5,040 Mar 24
Lockyer v Lush 1886 L 3,003 Mar 26
In re Crossley, Fenton v Riminington 1886 C 4504 lliar 26
Salaman v Ingle 1887 S 409 Mar 28
Stedman v Williams 1886 S 3,916 Mar 31
Powell, exor v Davies 1886 P 2,889 April 1
Hesketh v Holland 1886 H 3,024 April 5
In re Infield, Infield v Martin 1887 I 18 April 5
Prior v Edwards 1886 P 1,917 (Cambridge Reg) April 5
Sharp v Wilmot 1886 S 1,625 April 18
2,863 Feb 25
Set down 14th March Birmingham Ashton v Birmingham Central Trams Co &
Set down 25th March Middlesex Wise v Hoborn & anr Mr Overend for dft
Set down 28th March Middlesex Steer v The St J ames’s Residential Cham-
S6;dl(iW!L 2nd April Middlesex Harcourt v Riviera Pit in person Baron
Set_down -tth April Middlesex Simmons v Labouchere Mr D Seymour J us-
Sci) 5th April Middlesex Dutch v Scargill Mr T R Kemp Baron
Set down 7th Atpril Middles-or Counsell v London & Westminster Loan &
Set down 27th April Middlesex Hobbs v Graefe Mr Walton Justice Denman
Set down 28th April Middlesex Colbourn v Kersley &ors Mr Robson for
Set down 28:h April Middlesex Smith v Consolidated Credit and Mortgage
Sci down 29th April Middlesex Clarke v Great Eastern Ry Co Mr Murphy
Set down 6th Maly Middiesex Gas Light & Coke Co v Vestry of St George,
Set down 6th May Middlssex Eaton v Lake Mr Fill-in for plt Justice
Set down 7th May Middlesex Shaw, Saville, 8: Albion Co, 1.1 v Bell Coleman
Stgtgogn llth May Middlesex Stone v Chapman 8-: anr Mr Clay Justice
Set down 20th May Leeds J owett & anr v Local Board for District of Idle in
38¢ down 28th May Middleeex Willicombe v Chesterton Coal 8: Iron Co ld Mr
Set down lst J uue Middlesex Rayden v Carter Mr Vennell Baron Pollock
Ballantyne & Co v Carter (Wilson & ors clints)
In re Arbitration between J ackson & Jackson
Lee (trading, &c) v Horshani dc Co
Dufresne 8: ors v Richards 8: ors
Atkinson v Young & anr, Young v Atkinson
Loticga v John Ross & Co
In re a Solicitor, Expte Jennings (urgent)
Collin v Sani
Hedley v Grey
Weldon v De Bathe
Crows v Thywiasen
Capsey v Everett '
Exchange Telegraph Co, id v Maitland
Le Fleming v Jay Jay v Le Fleming
In re a Solicitor Exple Incorporated Law Soc
English, Scot'ivh 8: Australian Chartered Bank Benjamin dt Co
Sussex Gardner v Mansbridge Magistrate's caoe argued April 19, cor. Justices
Yorkshire Leeds Mayor, &s, of Leeds v Robshaw County Court argued April
Middlcsex The Queen v General Council of Medical Education and Registration
For Argument. _
Met Pol Dist The Queen v J Pager, Esq, Met Pol Magistrate, 8: O Brien 1\isi
Linoolnshire, Sleaford Sharpe at Co v H H Judge Leonard ct ors County C0l1r~
Glamorganshire, Aherdare In re Davies, dec( owells v Morgan) Count!’ CW"
Yorkshire, Leeds Sherlock v Brown Bros County Court Defendants appeal
Lancashire, Liverpool Edwards ct Co v Tregarthen County Court Dflffilldlmi 9
Yorkshire, Bradford Craven v Bradford Advance &c Bank id 8: Hartley County
London J amrsck v West & ors Mayor s Court Defendants appeal. ’ 1
Surrey, Wandsworth Robinson v Robinson County Court laintifl I app“
Surrey The Queen v Vestry of St George the Martyr, Southwarlr Nisi ior mandamus to pay pension (expte Smith)
Glamorganshire, Absrdaro Baker v Psnrhlweeiber Coal Co County Court I)>~ fendant'a appeal H H J udga
London Dryer v Ash Bros County Court Plaintiifs appeal Judge
Middlesex,Westminstrr Thrussoll v Handyside & Co County Court Plaintifl"a appeal H H Jndze Bayley
Middlesex, Shoreditch \Villiams v Docwra & Son County Court Plaintiil"s
Surrey Lamheth Jonas v Long St or: County Court (Equity) Defendant
Surreiy, Southwark Wright v Wallis Cmnty Court Plaiu"tf‘s appeal H H
Middlesex, Edmonton Philips & anr v Dodi County Court Plaintitl‘.' appeal
Lincolnsliire, Gainsborough Chstterton v Cheesiuan & anr County Court Dy
St R.r\udrew's Hospital, Northampton, Applia and Shearamith (Surveyor of Tues)