Page images
PDF
EPUB

July 2, 1887.

THE SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.

been effectually transferred to her by the testatrix, and that C. had not No medical evidence had been adduced by the petitioner, but the medical witnesses called on the other side had expressed opinions adverse to the been constituted a trustee of the note for her. NORTH, J., held that E. was entitled to the £200. He said that it could probability of the legitimacy of the petitioner, while the whole course of A verdict against the legitimacy could not was the father of the child. not be disputed that, if the testatrix had placed £200 in money in the conduct on the part of the mother pointed to the conclusion that Craven hands of C., with a direction similar to that which she gave respecting the note, there would have been an effectual voluntary gift of the £200 to E. be found upon a mere balance of probabilities, but in the present case there was sufficient evidence to justify the finding. On both grounds the It was not, however, necessary that money should be actually paid over; it was only necessary that there should be either a complete transfer of application for a new trial must be refused. Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., conproperty or a valid declaration of trust of it. The note was placed in the curred. COUNSEL, Gully, Q.C., and Ram; Gore; Sir C. Russell, Q.C., hands of C., as a trustee, to be handed over by him to E. on the happen- | Inderwick, Q.C., and C. A. Middleton. SOLICITORS, Gedge, Kirby, & Millett; ing of the particular event mentioned by the testatrix, and down to the Gregory, Rowcliffes, Rawle, & Johnstone; Collyer-Bristow, Withers, Russell, time of her death she had never altered the intention which she had ex- & Hill. pressed to him. It was unnecessary to consider what would have been the result if the testatrix had changed her mind.-COUNSEL, Cookson, Q.C., and S. B. L. Druce; Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and Phipson Beale; Giffard, Q.C., and Bardswell; Yate Lee; Manby; E. Ford. SOLICITORS, Gamlen, Burdett, & Woodhouse; Letts Brothers; Lane, Fagge, & Andrews; Venn & Co.

BANKRUPTCY CASES.

Ex parte BURGESS, Re BURGESS.-Q. B. Div., 7th and 8th June. BOSVILLE v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.-P. D. & A. Div., 29th BANKRUPTCY-DISCHARGE-REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS-REFUSAL OF

June.

CERTIFICATE-MISCONDUCT-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883, s. 32.

In this case the bankrupt appealed from the refusal of the judge of the EVIDENCE-PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY-PERIOD OF GESTATION. Judgment was given in this case on an application to a Divisional Court Norwich County Court to grant him a certificate for the removal of for a new trial of a petition under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, disqualifications under section 32 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Section which had been tried before the President of the Probate, Divorce, and 32 provides that where a debtor is adjudged bankrupt he shall, subject Admiralty Division and a special jury. The petitioner, Arthur Bolle to the provisions of the Act, be disqualified for sitting or voting Bosville, by his next friend, petitioned for a declaration that he was the in the House of Lords or Commons, or being appointed or acting as school board, vestry, or in other offices of a similar nature therein legitimate son of Thomas Bolle and Elizabeth Marian Bosville. Mr. and justice of the peace, mayor, alderman, guardian of the poor, member of a (2) The disqualifications to which a bankrupt is sub(b) Mrs. Bosville were married on the 14th of June, 1882, and a daughter was born in the following year. On the 30th of June, 1884, the wife eloped specified, but that " with Augustus William Craven. On the 6th of August, 1885, the court ject under this section shall be removed and cease if and whenpronounced a decree nisi dissolving the marriage, which decree was after- he obtains from the court his discharge with a certificate to the effect that wards made absolute. On the 3rd of April, 1885, Mrs. Bosville gave birth his bankruptcy was caused by misfortune without any misconduct on his but any refusal of such certificate shall be subject to appeal." In the to a son, who was the petitioner in this suit. Mr. and Mrs. Bosville had part. The court may grant or withhold such certificate as it thinks fit, been cited to appear, and the former alleged in his answer that he was not the father of the petitioner. The Attorney-General traversed the present case the bankrupt was a printer at Norwich and editor of the allegations in the petition, but took no active part in the proceedings. At Daylight newspaper in that town. In 1886, having been indicted for a libel, the trial no medical evidence was called on behalf of the petitioner, but he gave a bill of sale over his property for the purposes of his defence. it was contended that, since the petitioner was born only 277 days after At the Ipswich Summer Assizes he was found guilty and sentenced to the cessation of cohabitation between the husband and the wife, there three months imprisonment and to pay the costs of the prosecution. was an irrebuttable presumption in favour of his legitimacy, and that no During the bankrupt's imprisonment the goods, including his machinery Mr. Bosville's and plant, &c., were sold, and in August, 1886, while still in prison at Ipsevidence was admissible to rebut that presumption. time of Mrs. wich, he filed his own petition. On application for discharge, the official at the that evidence to show counsel called Bosville's elopement certain physical conditions existed, and two receiver, after dealing with the criminal prosecution above mentioned, medical witnesses were called, who stated that the existence of reported that the losses and deficiency appeared to have arisen through law such conditions within the 277 days would almost exclude the idea costs and other expenses incurred in the defence of actions brought that the child was Mr. Bosville's. The President, in summing up the case against the bankrupt, which had involved a heavy outlay. He also to the jury, laid it down that the child of a married woman must be presumed reported that the bankrupt had continued to trade after knowing himself to be the child of her husband until the contrary was proved, although to be insolvent, and that on a previous occasion he had made a private the stringency of the rule had been somewhat relaxed in more modern composition arrangement with his trade creditors. The discharge of the cases, and that a party disputing the child's legitimacy could not succeed bankrupt was granted on consent being given that judgment be entered without proving such facts as would carry to the jury the conviction of against him to pay the official receiver 5s. in the pound by instalments, his illegitimacy. He expressed an opinion that the medical evidence did under section 28, sub-section (6), but an application for a certificate for not demonstrate the impossibility of Mr. Bosville being the father of the the removal of disqualifications under section 32 was refused, the county petitioner, and he expressed his regret that the law excluded the evidence court judge holding that by the word "misfortune" in the section of the husband and wife. He also read to the jury the following extract something unforeseen which could not be guarded against was to be from the judgment of Lord Lyndhurst in Morris v. Davies (5 C. & F. 265): understood; that the thing which had without doubt brought the greatest -"That presumption of law is not lightly to be repelled. It is not to be embarrassment on the bankrupt in the present case was the criminal trial, broken in upon or shaken by a mere balance of probability. The evidence which, coupled with the fact that the bankrupt had continued to trade for the purpose of repelling it must be strong, distinct, satisfactory, and after knowing himself to be insolvent, prevented him from coming to the conclusive." The jury found that the petitioner was not the son of Mr. conclusion that the bankruptcy had been caused by misfortune without behalf of the bankrupt that his position was attributable to the law costs Bosville, and an application was afterwards made to a divisional court any misconduct on the bankrupt's part. On appeal it was urged on for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The petitioner's counsel argued that the and to the fact that owing to the forced sale his property had realized presumption of legitimacy was a proesumptio juris et de jure and could not much below its real value, and that the bankruptcy was therefore owing therein On the under the Act; that section 32 was a corollary to section 28 of the Act be rebutted, and that, therefore, the jury ought to have been directed to solely to misfortune. It was also argued that a libel was not misconduct find a verdict in accordance with the prayer of the petition. other side it was urged that the petitioner could not object to the direc- and must be interpreted in reference to it and to the "conduct tion to the jury, which was strongly in his own favour; that the presump-specified alone (Ex parte Board of Trade, Re Betts & Block, 35 W. R. 530). tion of legitimacy arising from cohabitation was not a præsumptio juris et de jure, since it might be rebutted by evidence of physical incapacity; and that the medical evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to rebut the presumption. The following cases were cited during the argument :The Banbury Peerage case (1 S. & S. 153); Head v. Head (1 T. & R. 138); Morris v. Davies (1 C. & T. 163); Bury v. Philpott (2 Myl. & K. 349); Legge v. Edmonds (4 W. R. 71); Plowes v. Bossey (10 W. R. 332, 2 D. & S. 145); Hawes v. Draiger (31 W. R. 576, 23 Ch. D. 173); The Aylesford Peerage case (11 App. Cas. 1). BUTT, J., now delivered the judgment of the Divisional Court. In the case of the birth of a child during wedlock there was, of course, prima facie a strong presumption in favour of its legitimacy; but on the other hand it was established by high authority that evidence was admissible to rebut the presumption, and, therefore, there was no ground for the contention that the presumption is a præsumptio juris et de jure, and that the jury ought to have been directed to find a verdict for the petitioner. The decision of the House of Lords in Morris v. Davies was an authority in favour of this view, as was shewn by the observations of Lord BlackIt could not be said that there had burn in The Aylesford Peerage case. The child was born within a been any misdirection in the present case. not impossible period of gestation, and the President had read and explained to the jury the statement of the law expressed by Lord Lyndhurst in Morris v. Davies, and he would not have been justified in withdrawing the case from the jury. The counsel for the petitioner had also failed to shew that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

THE COURT (MATHEW and CAVE, JJ.) dismissed the appeal. MATHEW, J., no other possible way of dealing with the case than that adopted by the said that as soon as the facts were brought to light it was clear there was His lordship could see no reason whatever for county court judge. putting any such construction on the Act as that "misconduct” in section 32 must be interpreted with reference to section 28. The section misconduct. There was also no ground for a further distinction which meant what it said, pure misfortune as distinguished from and without was attempted to be made, that, although certain crimes against person and property might be misconduct, libel would not be. CAVE, J., said that there was no qualification in the section to the word "misconduct." implied blame, and his lordship thought it implied moral blame not of a trivial character. In the present case the sentence imposed showed conwas traceable to the prosecution. The bankruptcy was caused by the libel, siderable moral delinquity on the part of the bankrupt. The bill of sale the sentence, and the imprisonment. It was caused by the crime of the bankrupt, and it was impossible to discuss the question that it was not caused by misconduct.-COUNSEL, E. Cooper Willis, Q.C.; H. Browne; Muir Mackenzie. SOLICITORS, Storey & Crowland; J. Stanley; The Solicitor to the Board of Trade.

SOLICITORS STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS.

25th June-ERNEST WATTS.
28th June-JOSEPH EDWARD CURTEIS.

It

LAW SOCIETIES. UNITED LAW CLERKS' SOCIETY.

THE fifty-fifth anniversary festival of this useful society was held on Wednesday at St. James's Hall, the Honourable Mr. Justice STIRLING presiding. Nearly 300 guests were present, amongst whom were Mr. A. Cohen, Q.C., M.P., Mr. W. R. Kennedy, Q.C., Mr. F. W. Bush, Q.C., Mr. W. W. Karslake, Q.C., Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Q.C., Mr. T. Fischer, Q.C., Mr. F. O. Crump, Q.C., Mr. T. D. Bolton, M.P., Mr. Grosvenor Woods, Mr. Samuel Hall, Mr. Lewis Coward, Mr. Fooks, Mr. Bargrave Deane, Mr. Rawle, Mr. Adams, Mr. J. Anderson Rose, Mr. C. E. Jones, Mr. Binns Smith, Mr. Ingle Joyce, Mr. W. Holmes, Mr. T. Sladen, Mr. E. Bannister, Mr. F. H. Rooke, Mr. Sydney St. John Steadman, Mr. E. J. Castle, Mr. E. W. Stock, Mr. W. F. Eldridge, Mr. R. W. McLeod Fullarton, Mr. Trinder Romer, Mr. J. R. Adams, Mr. F. Morgan, Mr. R. W. Dibdin, Mr. G. O. Price, Mr. B. Houghton, Mr. H. Fereday, Mr. J. E. S. King, Mr. T. C. Wright, Mr. G. Napier Trollope, Mr. T. Rawle, Mr. W. Weale, Mr. J. J. Keily, Mr. H. Brandon, Mr. J. Nicholls, Mr. T. E. Watkin, Mr. R. E. Turner, Mr. A. W. Timbrell, Mr. S. Hall, Mr. Boyle Thompson (medical officer of the society), &c.

The CHAIRMAN having proposed the loyal toasts, which were received with the customary enthusiasm, gave the toast of the evening, "Prosperity to the United Law Clerks' Society." He said he had been looking at the report of the society for the past year, and he thought that in many respects he might congratulate himself in being able to address them upon an occasion on which such a report came before them. He congratulated himself both on what was in the report and on what was not there. For in all the reports which he had had the privilege up to this time of reading and on all the occasions on which he had had the pleasure of being present on occasions like this there had always occurred a paragraph, there had always been a sentence or two in the speech of the chairman devoted to a recognition of the losses which the society had sustained in the course of the past year. No such paragraph occurred this year in the report of the society, and no such sentence was required from him. That did not arise from the fact that there had been during the past year no professional changes, but apparently none of these changes had been occasioned by the removal from amongst them of the friends of the society. One venerable form had disappeared from the bench at the Royal Courts of Justice, but the ViceChancellor, for so they must still term him, was yet amongst them, and if the weight of years prevented him from longer taking an active part in the administration of justice, it had not deprived him of the capacity of cultivating those tastes and enjoying those pleasures which had alleviated the trials of a long professional career and were now the solace of his green old age. In the House of Lords, again, an unforeseen and sudden failure of health had deprived the public and the profession of the benefit of the services of Lord Blackburn, than whom he might safely say that during the last quarter of a century no greater expositor of the English law had sat on the bench; but he was sure they would all rejoice to learn that entire relief from the strain of judicial work had abated those symptoms of failing health which had alarmed his friends and led to his resignation, and that he was now enabled to look forward to a life which would be at least as long as those of his contemporaries, and it was hoped that with returning strength he would be able, occasionally at least, to take his place in the House of Lords and to add to those numerous judgments of his which had already enriched the law reports. He (the chairman) would now turn to what was in the report, and he observed that in it a distinction was drawn between what was termed the provident character of the society and its benevolent operations. With respect to provident societies they knew that they were beset by numerous dangers. Some of them came before the courts of justice occasionally in a distressing form. They had heard of cases in which such societies had, through the bad management, or the negligence, or perhaps something worse, of those to whom their affairs had been entrusted, become unable to fulfil their contracts or have had them reduced, and that was an operation which was accompanied with great distress on the part of those who had looked forward to the provision which they thought they had made out of their hard earnings for their old age, or for those who were to remain after they were gone. No suggestion of any such want of care, he was sure, had ever entered the minds of any of those who had known of the operations of the society. Its trustees and administrators were far beyond the suspicion of anything of the kind. In was not in that direction at all that any danger had been apprehended for the society, but another source had been looked on as that to which it was most exposed; for he remembered that on previous occasions its actuaries and its auditors had warned the members of this, and the last time when he had dined with the society he could remember that the learned judge who had then occupied the chair and several speakers had dwelt with some apprehension on the danger to which it was exposed from being so old an institution. It was suggested that with age came a decay in the zeal of the members, and when they saw that they had accumulated considerable capital they no longer exerted themselves to bring in younger members, but it was pointed out by the reports and by the speakers on these occasions that therein lay the great danger for the society, and that it might become a society composed of old members who rested on what they had done-on the funds which they had accumulated. There was a very great danger that the contributions might drop off while the liabilities increased, and that a time might come when the accumulated capital, no longer supported by the contributions of younger members, might be found insufficient to meet the demands upon it. He rejoiced greatly, therefore, to find a clear

|

statement in the report that not only had the accumulated capital largely increased, but that the society had now a greater number of members than it ever had before. And he trusted that those who would preside over its future anniversary festivals would have from year to year to call attention to an improvement in this respect. It had always been the case, as he had said, that the members of the society had been warned against allowing their zeal to abate, and in common with those who had preceded him he now expressed a hope that the members of the society would not be content with annually making their personal contributions to the funds, but that they would exert themselves with the zeal they seemed to have displayed during the last few years to procure further members and so strengthen the society in every respect. The sole note of regret which he found in the report was that which related to the benevolent operations of the society. He found it said that the administrators of its funds had found themselves straitened in the means of fulfilling their benevolent desires in this respect. It was deeply to be regretted that this should be the case, and he trusted that this evening they would be able to shew by substantial contributions to the fund that they regretted, not only by word, but by deed, the deficiency in this respect during the past year, and that they had taken the means of supplying the committee with funds which should be adequate to the operations with which they desired to engage. No one who had taken an active part in the labours of the profession could have failed to have come into contact with many most admirable men who fulfilled the duties of law clerks. All of those present at his end of the table he was sure had known many whose worth in their station had been equal to that of those in much more exalted positions. He could recall, amongst those who were gone and those whom he knew to be living, men in the comparatively humble position in the profession of law clerks who had acquitted themselves in their station and discharged their duties in regard to the interests of the clients and the interests of truth and honour in a way which would be no discredit to any one of her Majesty's Counsel arguing at the bar of any court in the kingdom. With many he had come in personal contact, and, speaking for himself, he felt all the regard and esteem which was due to a long comradeship in the profession. He trusted that the subscriptions received this evening would shew a desire that the committee should no longer be hampered in their wish to discharge the benevolent operations of the society, but that they should have such funds placed in their hands as would enable them to meet the claims of misfortune. The members were men of a most worthy class, and who had by their exertions in their own behalf deserved well of the community, and they had deserved that they should receive this mark of their sympathy from the guests present as a proof that they considered the law clerks members of the same profession as themselves. The toast was drunk upstanding, and with three times three.

Mr. T. H. FISCHER, Q.C., gave the health of the chairman, observing that one of the first duties a newly-made judge was called upon to perform was to preside at one of these annual festivals, and those present had had the opportunity of witnessing with what cordiality and good will the duty had been discharged by the chairman this evening. From the courtesy and patience with which he also listened to every member of the bar, Mr. Justice Stirling made the discharge of professional duties in his court a real pleasure to those who had the privilege of practising there. It was his earnest hope that their chairman might long be spared to adorn the bench. The toast was drunk with great enthusiasm and musical honours. The CHAIRMAN, who was received with loud applause, returned thanks, observing that he felt it a great honour to be permitted to preside on such an occasion. He need not tell them how much every judge in England owed to those who practised before him, and, above all others, how much he, coming to the bench in early years, and without that experience which her Majesty's Counsel acquired, had had to depend upon the forbearance and the help which had been cordially given to him by all those who had practised in the front bench before him. He thanked them all most heartily, juniors, solicitors, and law clerks for the help he had received. He could not forget the law clerks, because, every Monday, he had to sit in chambers, and he could say that nothing conduced so much to the speedy despatch of business as the accuracy with which the law clerks laid their cases before him. That, for the amount of business he had to get through, was the heaviest day of the week, and he therefore spoke with the utmost sincerity when he said he thanked the law clerks no less than the Queen's Counsel for the help and support they had alike given him.

Mr. F. O. CRUMP, Q.C., in proposing the next toast, said that it had been usual at these anniversary festivals to give the health of the Bench, the Bar, and the Profession, but to-night their chairman was the only representative of the bench present, and he (Mr. Crump) would therefore propose the health of the Bar and the Profession. He should have been glad if there had been present members of the bench to support the chairman, because he knew on similar occasions what a high tribute had been paid by judges to the law clerks on account of the assistance they had derived from them, and he wished they could have come upon one evening of the year to express their sympathy and gratitude by their presence. But they must not suppose for one moment that he wished to detract from the bench, who he believed to be men whose sympathies were, and always would be, with the society, and if the occasion arose when it was necessary for them to give expression to their sympathy, it would be shewn in the most practical form. He asked them cordially to drink the health of the bar. The toast of the profession included the great body of English solicitors and it included the law clerk, because, whether they were clerks to barristers or clerks to solicitors, their interests were identical with those of their principals, and the law clerks were entitled to say that they were members of one of the greatest professions

that England could boast of. He did not single out the bar and put it alone as apart from the profession. He was proud to belong to the profession of which they were all members. He would like before sitting down to refer to an incident which had taken place in the Temple-gardens on the preceding day as shewing what ought to be done by all of them as a profession in taking part, not only in helping each other, but in helping those less fortunate than themselves. He had seen in the newspapers this morning a record that upwards of 2,000 little children taken from the gutters of the East End of London had been entertained in the Temple-gardens by the Benchers and Queen's Counsel. That was only one phase of their common existence. They might look upon those unhappy gutter children and say they were very unfortunate, but it was in the profession of the law, as in other avocations, that times came when great moral courage was required. He did not care whether it was the judge who had just gone to the bench, and who had to brave the ordeal of the position; or that individual who, emerging from a stuff robe, launches on the waters of speculation in silk and does not know whether he is going to the dogs or whether he is to make for himself a high position; or the solicitor from the country who had come to London to take a practice, in the purchase of which he had ventured all his capital; or the law clerk whose interests were bound up with those of his principal, and who bas to look to the future of himself and his family. From the judge to the humblest law clerk, each required that greatest of moral attributesmoral courage. And he asked the members of the society in the times of adversity not to be hasty in looking to the society, but to combat the evils they had to meet in life. He urged them not to be ready to have recourse to these splendid funds accumulated during the last fifty-five years. For a great many years he had had the pleasure of being present on these occasions. He took the greatest interest in the society, and hoped its success would go on increasingly. Mr. GAINSFORD BRUCE, Q.C., returned thanks for the bar. He said they were all proud of their profession, and well they might be proud of it. It had been said by ar old writer that the voice of the law was the harmony of the world, and all things felt her power. The greatest felt her power, and the least was not exempted from her care. It was on occasions of this kind that one was forcibly reminded of the great brotherhood of the law. What a great brotherhood it was, and how they all gained strength by recognizing the great brotherhood to which they all belonged. It was a very busy and active brotherhood. In all branches of the profession men were busy working. He hoped, he believed, he was sure, that it was an honourable profession, that unless men in the fession devoted themselves to their work from high principle, and were actuated by honour in every act, they were unworthy of the profession, and they could never have the confidence of those with whom they came into contact. It was not only in the higher branches, but in every branch, and this was carried out to a remarkable extent, and he did not know any profession in which the members were on better terms with one another. The reason was that they were so busy fighting their clients' quarrels that they could not afford to have any quarrels of their own. He hoped the characteristics of which he had spoken would continue to prevail, and that they would always be an active, busy, honourable brotherhood, and that they should remain on good terms with one another, and so discharge their duties to their own credit and to the advantage of those for whom they were concerned. Mr. J. R. ADAMS responded for the profession, expressing his belief that solicitors did not take so much interest in the society as the members of the bar, which was much to be regretted.

pro

Mr. LEWIS COWARD, in a humorous speech, gave the toast of the ladies, and the proceedings terminated.

£350.

Subscriptions and donations were received to the amount of upwards of During dessert a programme of music was excellently performed under the direction of Mr. Gregory Hast, assisted by Madame Worrell, Madame Florence Winn, and Mr. Franklin Clive. Pianiste, Mr. Charles H. Kempling, R.A.M.

The death is announced of Sir Matthew Cameron, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas of Ontario, Canada, who was knighted only last month.

The Insurance Record observes that the Jubilee has brought honours to the Law Fire Office, three directors of which are among the new knightsnamely, the chairman, Arnold W. White, Esq., Solicitor to the Queen; Wm. J. Farrer, Esq., High Bailiff of Westminster; and H. Fox Bristowe, Esq., Q.C., Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

On the 24th ult. the Prince Regent of Bavaria paid a visit to the Royal Courts of Justice, and was conducted over the building by the Superintendent. The Prince Regent, it is understood, contemplates erecting new law courts in Munich shortly, and his Highness evinced the greatest interest in his inspection of the various courts and the mode of conducting business in them, which was explained to him.

In the House of Commons on the 23rd ult., in answer to Mr. Childers, Mr. Matthews said that answers had been received from a large majority of the court-house authorities with reference to the accommodation of prisoners awaiting trial. Most of these bodies had appointed committees or were ctherwise considering the question. Some had entirely adopted the alterations and improvements suggested by the committee of the right hon. gentleman. Very few-not more than one or two-had refused to adopt those suggestions, and these he hoped might be induced to take a more reasonable view, and on the whole he trusted that there would be no necessity for legislation on the subject.

A HISTORY OF SOLICITORS AND ATTORNEYS.* BY FREDERICK E. SAWYER, F.S.A., of Brighton. LAWYERS are, as a rule, such good supporters of antiquarian research that it is somewhat surprising that the ancient and honourable professions of "attorney" and "solicitor" (now merged in that of "solicitor ") have not having published their records (with, in some cases, complete lists of their as yet found a historian. Various learned, scientific, and corporate bodies members from an early date), it seems to me that the proper time has arrived for bringing before the members of the Incorporated Law Society the question of the collection and publication of all records relating to their profession, including a complete list (or index) of attorneys and solicitors so far as ascertainable. The time at my disposal, of course, precludes the possibility of giving even a short history of the subject completely-indeed, it is more my object to show what can and should be done--and I propose, therefore, to sketch out the heads of research and discussion, and briefly to illustrate and explain the same.

[ocr errors]

66

1. Origin of the Office of Attorneys and Definition.-Attorneys-at-law were civilization, though I believe an ungracious public sometimes regards them no doubt the product of, and naturally incidental to, a state of great as a relic of the times when "private war was waged. Early English law required the personal attendance of parties to an action at each stage; but this, of course, occasioned great inconvenience and expense, and they then obtained letters patent under the Great Seal, or the authority of Parliament, to appear by attorney; but the general right in this behalf was not obtained until the Act 13 Edw. I. (1285). The patents, &c., were enrolled in open court by a special official, called the clerk of the warrants; and, until quite recently, the Lord Mayor of London, when attending at Westminster on November 9, in open court appointed an attorney for the city, usually the senior master of the court.† Attorneys-at-law (to whom I shall, for brevity, refer as "attorneys") were nearly the same as proctors in the courts of civil law. The Judicature Act, 1873, has now abolished the title, and from November 1, 1875, all attorneys and solicitors have been styled "solicitors of the Supreme Court of Judicature," sometimes abbreviated (particularly by Scotch lawyers) to "S.S. C.," which title has, however, been ridiculously usurped by some medical men who have passed a university examination in sanitary science, and therefore dubbed themselves "S.S.C." (Sanitary Science Certificate). It is somewhat ludicrous to observe that the leading journal (the Times), which even publishes Weekly Law Reports," has not yet, at the lapse of more than eleven years, discovered the change, and still absurdly designates us as "attorneys." As regards the definition of the word "attorney," I cannot do better than quote the latest standard authority, "The New English Dictionary" (edited by Dr. James A. H. Murray). From this it seems that the word appears in English literature in the forms of aturne, atorne, attourne, atturney, attourney, aturncy, atturnie, atturneye, and atturneie. It is the past participle masculine of the old French verb atourner, to attorn," in the sense of "one appointed or constituted." Dr. Murray observes that "the statement found in law dictionaries for the last 200 years that the word means one who acts in the turn of another' is a bad guess." The third sense in which the word is used is that of “ attorneyat-law, or public attorney," defined as a professional and properly-qualified legal agent, practising in the courts of common law (as a solicitor practised in the courts of equity). This sense slowly disengaged itself from that of attorney as one duly appointed to act for another in business, &c. From an early period the name was often used reproachfully, as almost ‘knave' or 'swindler.'" The following illustrative quotations are given :-1330 cir. Political Songs, p. 339: "Attourneis in cuntré theih geten silver for noht." [This, as we all know, is an old cry of a somewhat mean and illiberal public.] 1402. Act of 4 Henry IV.: "Ordeignez est et establiz qe toutes ces attournees soient examinez par les Justices, & par leur discretion leur nouns mys en rolle." (It is ordained that all attorneys be examined by the justices, and that, at the discretion of these, their names be entered on the roll.) 1536. Wriothesley's Chron. (1875 ed.) i, 57: "An atturney of the lawe and felowe of Graies Inne." 1768. Blackstone's Commentaries, iii. 25: "An attorney-at-law answers to the procurator or proctor of the civilians and canonists." The quotations referring to the word in an unfavourable sense are: 1400. William of Nassington, Spec. Vit. MS. Bodl. 48, lf. 166:

46

[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

"A fals atorne Ffor he foloweb wt al his my3t As wel a wrong ple as a ri3t."" 1732. Pope (Moral Essays, iii. 274) referring to 'the Man of Ross' making up differences, &c., says:Despairing quacks with curses fled the place 1784. Even good old Dr. Johnson could not help having a fling at the And vile attorneys now an useless race.' poor attorney, for he observed to Boswell that "he did not care to speak ill attorney." of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was

[ocr errors]

an

2 Ori in of the Office of Solicitors and Definition.-Solicitors were formerly distinguished from attorneys as not having power to bind their principals; but in later years the term was restricted to practitioners in chancery, Parliament, Privy Council, &c. Perhaps the best old definition of a solicitor" was, one who does in chancery the business which is done by attorneys in other courts." There is more obscurity about the early history of solicitors than of attorneys, and a "common solicitor was not thought to hold a very respectable office, being sometimes only a menial servant of the Read at the London Meeting of the Incorporated Law Society.

+ Pulling, Laws of London, p. 89.

nobility. This inferiority continued until the seventeenth century; as in 1654 it was provided that no person should be admitted as an attorney unless he had practised for five years in the courts as a common solicitor. The growth in the jurisdiction of the chancery courts, causing the two professions of attorney and solicitor to be united in the same person, resulted in the latter term gradually superseding the former. The word "solicitor" is from the Norman-French solliciteur, derived from the Latin sollicitare: to agitate, urge, or solicit.

3. Chronology.-For convenience in considering the various points in the history of our profession, I have prepared the following brief chronological table:

1235. Attorneys allowed in minor courts. 1285. General attorneys allowed to act. 1402. Roll of attorneys required to be kept. 1606. Some legal training required.

1654. Attorneys ordered to join inns of court and chancery. Service as

clerk required by rules of court.

1729. Articles of clerkship required by statute.

1785. Annual duty imposed.

1795. Stamp duty on articles imposed.

1801. First official Law List published.

1831. Law Society incorporated by Royal Charter.

1836. A final examination first required.

1843. Solicitors Act passed; Incorporated Law Society made registrar.
1860. Preliminary and Intermediate Examinations required.
1873. Attorneys abolished and called solicitors.

4. Regulation by Law-(a) Number allowed. Some limitation in the number of attorneys seems to have existed at an early date, as we find the Statute 4 Henry 4, c. 18 provided that "as any die or cease, the justices shall appoint others being virtuous, learned, and sworn." The eastern counties appear to have suffered from an excess of attorneys, as we find in an amusing manner from the Act 33 Henry 6 [1455], c. 7, which recited that "not long before, within the city of Norwich and the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk there were but six or eight attornies at most, in which time great tranquillity reigned there; but that now in the said city and counties there were above fourscore attornies, the greater part of whom, having nothing else to live upon, spent their time in fomenting and encouraging little, trifling, and vexatious suits, to the no small damages of the said city and counties. Wherefore, it was enacted that, from thenceforth, there should be but six common attornies in Norfolk, six in Suffolk, and two in the city of Norwich, who should be approved by the chief justices, and that the election and admission of all other attornies by the justices above the said number should be void, and if any other should presume to practise he should forfeit £20." It is suggested that the imposition of the heavy stamp duty on articles of clerkship was due to a desire to limit the number of attorneys; but having regard to the date (1795), it is more probable it was to help in the enormous taxation required for heavy foreign wars.

(b) Control by Statute and the Courts.-When the Incorporated Law Society first took in hand the subject of consolidation, there were no less than seventy Acts affecting solicitors, whereas there are now only three Acts in force older than the present reign. The first statute 20 Henry 3, c. 10 (passed indeed before there was a Parliament, but entered on the Parliament Roll, 1 Rot. Parl. 84) provided that "every freeman that oweth suit to the county, tithing, hundred, or wapentake, or to a court baron, may make an attorney to do his suit for him." The Statute of Westminster 2 (13 Edw. 1, c. 10) in 1285 enacted that "every person may make a general attorney to sue for him in all pleas in the circuit of the justices." The 4 Hen. 4, c. 18 providing for a roll and examination by the judges I have before mentioned. An Act, 3 Jac. 1, c. 7 provided that "none shall be admitted attornies in courts of record but such as have been brought up in the same courts, or otherwise well practised in soliciting of causes, and found skilful and of honest disposition.' It is unnecessary to follow through the various Acts one by one affecting attorneys and solicitors. The profession was controlled also by rules of court, and accordingly we find in 1654 an order that "all attorneys be admitted of some inn of court or chancery by Hilary Term next," or in the term next after that in which they are admitted as attorneys. Another order in 1704 declared that "many attorneys were not admitted of some inn of court or chancery according to ancient usage, the neglect whereof was to the detriment and decay of the said societies," and proceeded to require all to be admitted by Trinity Term next.

[ocr errors]

(c) Roll of Attorneys and Solicitors.-The first Act which required the keeping of a roll was the 4 Hen. 4, c. 18 (already mentioned), and, until the Act 2 Geo. 2, c. 23, this was the chief Act on the subject. The latter Act directed that rolls or books of admissions should be kept by the masters of each common law court, and in chancery by the clerk of the Petty Bag Office. I have made inquiry as to what rolls of attorneys are now forthcoming, and learn from the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records that in his office they have only got the admissions of attorneys from 1729 to this date, whilst at the Petty Bag Oflice they have the solicitors' admissions for the same period. Both these series seem to start with the Act 2 Geo. 2, c. 23 (already mentioned), but I am at present unable to trace the records of admissions for three centuries and a quarter (i.e. 1402 to 1729), though I trust these may be found, as no explanation has yet been offered as to their disappearance. The list of authorized practising attorneys and solicitors, &c., has been made known from time to time by the publication of printed lists known as the "Law Lists." The first of these appeared in 1793, and was published by Messrs. Stevens & Sons, who, as I am told, have a complete set from that date, and in 1801 the "Law List" became official, being then compiled from information furnished by attorneys when applying for their annual certificates (or licences). In 1861, by the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, it was enacted that "any such list issued by authority of the CommisIntrod. 1st Calendar (1882), p. 26,

sioners of Inland Revenue should be primâ facie evidence of the payments of duty by any attorney or solicitor whose name appeared therein." [Many of these facts are kindly supplied by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.] The courts of law and chancery have always possessed the power to strike off the roll any attorney or solicitor guilty of dishonest or unworthy conduct. (d) Taxation of Costs.-The charges of solicitors are and always have been subject to a process called "taxation," though why, it is somewhat difficult to say, seeing that we have not now an Assize of Bread, and that doctors' bills and barristers' fees are not subject to these inconvenient disabilities, and auctioneers and house agents can charge what they please. The historian of our profession will, of course, direct special attention to this head and its possible connection with "the Plan of Campaign.” (To be continued.)

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

Mr. JOSEPH HENRY DART, barrister, died at his residence, Beech House, Ringwood, Hampshire, on the 27th ult., at the age of seventy. Mr. Dart was the eldest son of Mr. Joseph Dart, of Tidwell, Devonshire, and was born in 1817. He was educated at Exeter College, Oxford, where he graduated second class in Mathematics in 1838, and he obtained the Newdigate Prize for English Verse in the same year. He was called to the Bar at Lincoln's inn in Hilary Term, 1841, and he had for many years a very extensive practice as a conveyancer. His well-known treatise on the law of Vendors and Purchasers has gone through many editions. Mr. Dart was for many years one of the conveyancing counsel to the Chancery Division. He was a bencher of Lincoln's-inn and a magistrate for Hampshire. He was married in 1842 to the daughter of Mr. Richard Humber. Mr. SAMUEL LILLEY, barrister, died at Southsea on the 22nd ult., at an advanced age. Mr. Lilley was the eldest son of Mr. Samuel Isaac Lilley, of Peckham, Surrey. He was educated at Jesus College, Oxford, was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1827, and practised on the South-Eastern Circuit, and at the Central Criminal Court. Mr. Lilley had for many years a large criminal business, and he had long been the leader of the Surrey Sessions. He was also much engaged at the various licensing sessions in and near the metropolis, and for the last two years he had been one of the revising barristers for the county of Surrey. Mr. FREDERICK ALBERT LEWIN, barrister, died suddenly on the 25th ult. from disease of the heart. Mr. Lewin was the fourth son of Mr. Robert Lewin, of Cuddington, Surrey. He was born in 1842. He was formerly fellow of Caius College, Cambridge, where he graduated as sixth wrangler in 1864. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Hilary Term, 1867, and he practised in the Chancery Division. He was the author of a treatise on "The Law of Apportionment," and he had edited "Lewin on Trusts." Mr. Lewin was married in 1869 to the eldest daughter of Mr. William Robert Baillie, W.S., of Edinburgh. He was buried on the 30th

ult.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. HENRY BROMET, solicitor (of the firm of Bromet, Taylor, & Bromet), of Leeds and Tadcaster, has been appointed Clerk to the Tadcaster School Board. Mr. Bromet was admitted a solicitor in 1863.

of Lincoln's-inn. Sir ARTHUR TOWNLEY WATSON, Bart., Q.C., has been elected a Bencher

Mr. JOHN EDMUND LINKLATER, barrister, has been appointed a Regis trar in Bankruptcy, in succession to the late Mr. Finlay Knight. Mr. Registrar Linklater is the eldest son of Mr. John Linklater, solicitor, of Sise-lane, and was born in 1849. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1872, and he has practised on the South-Eastern Circuit and in the Court of Bankruptcy.

Mr. JOHN DAVIS RAWLINS, solicitor (of the firm of Moore, Jackman, & Rawlins), of Lymington and Freshwater, has been appointed Clerk to the Lymington Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, School Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority. Mr. Rawlins was admitted a solicitor in 1876.

Mr. THOMAS BEARD, solicitor, of 10, Basinghall-street, has been appointed by Mr. William Alpheus Higgs, Sheriff-Elect, to be one of the Under-Sheriffs of London and Middlesex for the ensuing year. Mr. Beard was admitted a solicitor in 1858. He is deputy for the Ward of

Bassishaw.

Mr. JOHN HENRY FAWCETT, barrister, Consul-General and Judge of the Supreme Consular Court at Constantinople, has been created a Civil Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sir J. H. Fawcett is the eldest son of Mr. John Fawcett, barrister, and was born in 1831. He was educated at Rugby, and was formerly a scholar of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he graduated LL.B. in 1854. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1857, and formerly practised on the Northern Circuit. He was appointed Vice-Consul and Assistant-Judge at Constantinople in 1875, and in the following year he became Consul-General and Judge of the Supreme Consular Court.

Mr. WILLIAM FREDERICK HAYNES SMITH, Attorney-General of British Guiana, has been created a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Mr. Smith is the fourth son of Mr. John Lucie Smith, of

Georgetown. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity the Chingford Station Estate, Chingford, Essex; the West Stonebridge Term, 1863. He was Solicitor-General of British Guiana from 1865 till 1874, when he was appointed Attorney-General for the colony.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. SAMUEL BUTLER PROVIS, Assistant-Secretary of the Local Government Board, has been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath. Mr. Provis is the eldest son of Mr. Samuel Provis, of Bath. He was educated at Queen's College, Cambridge, and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1876.

Mr. JOHN MALCOLM FORBES LUDLOW, barrister, Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, has been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath. Mr. Ludlow is the only son of the late Lieutenant-Colonel John Ludlow, C.B., and was born in 1821. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's inn in Michaelmas Term, 1843, and he formerly practised in the Court of Chancery. He has been Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies

since 1875.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARD GREGG PHILIPPS, barrister, has been created a Baronet. Sir C. Philipps is the eldest son of Mr. Edward Fisher, of Huddersfield. He was born in 1840, and he assumed the name of Philipps by Royal license. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1868, and formerly went the Midland Circuit. Sir C. Philipps is a magistrate for Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, and a deputy-lieutenant for the latter county. He was High-Sheriff of Pembrokeshire in 1882, and he has been Lord-Lieutenant of the town and county of Haverfordwest since 1876.

Mr. HENRY CECIL GEARE, Solicitor (of the firm of Geare, Son, & Pease), of 57, Lincoln's-inn-fields, has been appointed a Commissioner to take Affidavits for the Supreme Court of the Province of South Australia. Mr. JOHN ROBERT ROBERTS, solicitor, of Halifax, has been appointed Clerk to the Justices of the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne. Mr. Roberts was admitted a solicitor in January, 1879, and during the last seven years has practised at Halifax in partnership with Mr. Walter Storey.

Mr. GEORGE ROSE-INNES, jun., solicitor, has been appointed UnderSheriff of London and Middlesex for the years 1887-8. He is a member of the firm of Rose-Innes, Son, & Crick, of Billiter-square, E.C., and was admitted in the year 1862. Mr. Rose-Innes, jun., has already held the

office since 1885.

[blocks in formation]

The Right Hon. GEORGE SCLATER BOOTH, barrister, M.P., who has been created Lord Basing, is the eldest son of Mr. William Lutley Sclater, of Hoddington House, Hampshire. He was born in 1826, and in 1857 he assumed the additional name of Booth by Royal license. He was educated at Winchester and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated second class in Classics in 1847. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1851, and he formerly practised in the Court of Chancery. He was M.P. for North Hampshire from 1857 till 1885, when he was returned for the Basingstoke Division of that county. He was secretary to the Poor Law Board from March, 1867, till February, 1868, and financial secretary to the Treasury from February till December, 1868. In 1874 he was appointed president of the Local Government Board, and was sworn in as a Privy Councillor, and he held that office till 1880. Lord Basing is a magistrate for Hampshire.

Sir ARNOLD WILLIAM WHITE, who has received the honour of Knighthood, was admitted a solicitor in 1857, and is a member of the firm of Arnold & Henry White, of 12 and 14, Great Marlborough-street, W. He is private solicitor to the Queen.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

CHARLES FREDERICK SMITH, THOMAS DISNEY LEAVER, and EDWARD LLANFAIR LEWES, solicitors, Lancaster House, Savoy, Strand, London. June 24. The said Charles Frederick Smith will in future carry on the said business alone. [Gazette, June 24.] GEORGE JAMES PIERCY and CHARLES ROBERT HUTCHINGS, Solicitors, Bournemouth. June 24. [Gazette, June 28.]

GENERAL.

ERRATUM. In the list of calls to the bar published last week, for "Ralph Sliff Simey, B.A., Cambridge," read "Ralph Iliff Simey, B.A., Oxford."

At a sale by Mr. H. J. E. Brake, on the 23rd ult., of 320 plots, being the remaining portions of the Southgate Park Estate, New Southgate, N.;

Park Estate, Stonebridge, Willesden; the property of the London Land Company, in Liquidation; the following prices were realized for each estate:-Southgate, £7,811; Chingford, £1,025; Willesden, £5,117; total, £13,953.

It is stated that considerable anxiety is felt at Croydon for the safety of Mr. G. W. Binns, a member of the firm of Messrs. Binns, Lincoln, & Marsh, solicitors of that town. The missing gentleman left Croydon on the 18th ult. for Southampton, where he had some important business to transact. He took up his quarters at the South-Western Hotel, and at seven o'clock the next morning went out for the purpose of having a bath, ordering his breakfast for half-past nine. At nine o'clock, however, his clothes were found on the beach, and although diligent search has since been made no further trace of him has been discovered.

was

At Bow-street on Saturday (says The Times) Francis Hill and Charles Thomas Hill, solicitors, of Chancery-lane, carrying on business as Messrs. Head & Hill, appeared to adjourned summonses charging them with wilful and corrupt perjury, alleged to have been committed in an action brought by Montague Mowbray Ballinger to recover money he alleged to be due under an agreement to share the profits of an action brought by Mr. and Mrs. Broughton against the Pall Mall Gazette in connection with the Armstrong case. The case against Mr. Francis Hill proceeded with. The prosecutor deposed that he was now a journalist. He became acquainted with the Broughtons, and introduced them to the defendants with the object of commencing an action against the Pall Mall Gazette for libel. He alleged that it was agreed that he should share the profits equally with the defendants. He averred that he had done so in other actions. The action was eventually settled by the payment of £450, and the defendants were represented to have stated that £250 was for costs and the balance for damages. Witness had several interviews on the question of sharing the profits, and eventually he received a statement of account of moneys advanced to him, and, after allowing him five-tenths of the profits, a cheque for £24 12s. was sent. He afterwards commenced an action to compel the defendants to render an account, and for the recovery of half the profits under the alleged agreement. A summons was taken out in the ordinary course, and in answer the defendants filed an share the profits. In consequence the action was stayed, and this was the affidavit repudiating the statement that there had been any agreement to In cross-examination by Mr. Kemp, witness said perjury complained of. he had been on the stage, and at the time he introduced the case to Messrs. Hill he was a correspondent for American newspapers, though he could not now give the names of any paper. He admitted that he had borrowed money from Mr. Charles Hill, and had written letters expressing his gratitude for the kindness he had received. Mr. Kemp produced a letter written by the witness to the defendants in which he urged his claim, and counsel particularly drew attention to an extract with reference to the alleged bargain. The extract read as follows:-"With you I did not think it necessary, for you always gave me to understand that you would treat me on agency terms, and the few 'spec.' actions have been to our mutual liking." Mr. Bridge asked if this was consistent with the witness's assertion that there had been a special bargain. It was an absolute contradiction. The magistrate further stated that anything more disgraceful than this case he had never heard, and he trusted that the Incorporated Law Society would take it up to prevent bargains between solicitors and clerks. It was absolutely unprofessional, and brought the profession of the law into disrepute. Mr. Kemp asked the magistrate not to assume that his clients had acted in the manner suggested, as they had several letters from the prosecutor to shew that they had treated him with every kindness. Mr. Bridge: They are not guilty of perjury, but I hope the Incorporated Law Society will make some inquiry. The summons was dismissed.

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