Page images
PDF
EPUB

not necessary that representation should be taken out to the executor, and that service of the petition on such a representative might be dispensed with.-COUNSEL, Butcher. SOLICITORS, Ullithorne, Currey, & Villiers.

ASHWORTH v. LORD-North, J., 2nd July. MORTGAGE-REDEMPTION-MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION-OVERPAYMENT-AcCOUNT WITH ANNUAL RESTS -- COSTS.

This was a mortgagors' action for the redemption of the mortgaged property. The mortgagees had been for many years in possession of the property. The judgment at the trial directed an account of what was due to the defendants for principal and interest in respect of their security, and for their costs of the action, and an account of rents received by them, &c., and that, on payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants of the balance (if any) found due to them, within six months of the date of the chief clerk's certificate, the defendants should re-convey the property to the plaintiffs, and that, in default of payment, the action should be dismissed with costs. But, in case it should appear on taking the accounts that the defendants had been overpaid, the further consideration of the action was adjourned. The chief clerk by his certificate found that the mortgage debt had been paid off as long ago as 1866 by means of rents which the defendants had received, and that there was a sum of £618 due from them in respect of rents which they had since received. The defendants had insisted that a large balance was due to them.

NORTH, J., held that an account must be taken against the defendants, with annual rests from the date at which they were fully paid; and that, as they had made an unfounded claim, they must, notwithstanding the form of the original judgment, pay the costs of the action.-COUNSEL, Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and E. S. Ford; Everitt, Q.C., and Ingle Joyce. SOLICITORS, Bolton, Robbins, Busk, & Co.; Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Co.

Re WATSON, CARLTON v. CARLTON-North, J., 6th July. WILL OF BRITISH SUBJECT EXECUTED IN SCOTLAND ACCORDING TO SCOTCH LAW-PERSONAL ESTATE-LEASEHOLDS IN ENGLAND-24 & 25 VICT. C. 114, s. 2.

The question in this case was whether the will of an Englishman resident in Scotland, executed there in the form required by Scotch law, was effectual to pass his leasehold estates in England, the will not being validly executed according to English law. The testator bequeathed his whole means and estate of whatever kind and denomination, or wherever situated, to a trustee to pay certain pecuniary legacies, and all the rest of his means and estate to be divided equally amongst certain godchildren of the testator. The testator had some leasehold estates situate in England. Section 2 of the Act 24 & 25 Vict. c. 114 provides that "Every will and other testamentary instrument made within the United Kingdom by any British subject (whatever may be the domicil of such person at the time of making the same or at the time of his or her death), shall, as regards personal estate, be held to be well executed, and shall be admitted in England and Ireland to probate, and in Scotland to confirmation, if the same be executed according to the forms required by the laws for the time being in force in that part of the United Kingdom

where the same is made."

NORTH, J., held that the words "personal estate" were not confined to movable property, but that they included leaseholds, and that the English leaseholds passed by the will.-COUNSEL, G. Henderson; S. Hall; R. F. Norton; Mackaskie. SOLICITORS, Miller & Miller; Cole & Jackson; Nicholson & Graham.

ST. ANDREW'S HOSPITAL, NORTHAMPTON v. SHEARSMITH-
Q. B. Div., 2nd July.
INCOME TAX-HOSPITAL.

This was a special case stated by Income Tax Commissioners on an appeal brought by the St. Andrew's Hospital at Northampton against an assessment of £7,000 made under Schedule D. of the Income Tax Act, 1853, for the year ending the 5th of April, 1884. The object of the hospital, which was founded by voluntary contributions and was opened in the year 1838, is the care and treatment of persons suffering from mental diseases. It is registered as required by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100, and is managed by a committee of subscribers whose services are gratuitous. The intention of the committee is to provide for the treatment and maintenance of poor patients who are unable to pay or can only pay a portion of the cost of the treatment and maintenance afforded; and in order to enable themselves to do this, they also receive richer patients, from whom they receive payment at various rates, according to their ability to pay, above the actual cost of their treatment and attendance; and this excess of payment, together with voluntary contributions, is applied towards the support of the poorer patients. From the opening of the hospital till the 1st of July, 1876, both private and pauper patients were received, the original proportion being one-third of the former to two-thirds of the latter; but in later years there was a tendency for the pauper class to exceed its due proportion. On the 1st of July, 1876, the pauper patients were removed to the New County Asylum near Northampton. The committee have been obliged of late years, at the instance of the Commissioners in Lunacy, to spend money in buying land in the proximity of the hospital to prevent the privacy of the patients being interfered with; and further expense has necessarily been incurred in erecting new buildings. It was said during the argument that the number of patients at the present time was 320, of whom 240 pay various sums exceeding the cost of their treatment and maintenance, and 80 are assisted patients. The annual profits derived from the wealthier patients, calculated on an average of the three years, 1880, 1881, and 1882, amounted to £7,000. The commissioners confirmed

the assessment subject to this case. It was argued on behalf of the appellants, first, that there were no profits at all within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts, and, secondly, that the sums received from the wealthier patients were exempt by section 105 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, which applies to Schedule D. the exemption given by section 88, sub-section 3, in the case of Schedule C. On the part of the Crown it was contended that the sums received were not the less profits because they were spent in charity, and that section 105 did not apply, as it did not refer to profits.

THE COURT (Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., and FIELD, J.) gave judgment for the Crown. This hospital was conducted on the principle of the richer patients paying sums in excess of what their treatment cost, to enable poorer patients to be also treated. The question was whether, under these circumstances, when there was a profit derived from the richer patients, that profit was assessable to income tax. Prima facie, these profits were clearly assessable. And they were not exempted by section 105; for, assuming the appellants to be such a corporation as mentioned in that section, this £7,000 was not an annual payment applied by the committee to charitable purposes only. So long as the committee received these patients, they received profits; and, though they were practically obliged by the Commissioners in Lunacy to spend those profits in a particular manner, and did use them for a wise and beneficent purpose, they were none the less profits, and therefore liable to income tax.—COUNSEL, Sir H. James, Q.C., and Graham; Sir E. Clarke, S.G., and Dicey. SOLICITORS, Hensman & Marshall, for Hensman & Sons, Northampton; The Solicitor of Inland Revenue.

CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

CRAY v. WRAY-Field, J., in chambers, 2nd December, 1886.* ACTION BY SOLICITOR FOR BILL OF COSTS FOR LESS THAN £50-COSTS ON HIGH COURT SCALE.

In this case a London agent sued a country client (a solicitor) for the amount of a signed bill of costs for less than £50 delivered in compliance with the provisions of the Solicitors Act, 1843. Appearance was entered and application for leave to defend was made under order 14, with the result that leave to defend was obtained on payment into court as to part of claim, and unconditional leave to defend as to the remainder. Subsequently the defendant, on application to tax the bill, withdrew the issues raised on the affidavits in defence. The costs were taxed. The plaintiff then applied for judgment on allocatur, and to tax the costs of the action. The order having been made, the plaintiff carried in his bill on the superior court scale. The master refused to tax. The plaintiff issued a summons before the judge, and cited Jones v. Brown (2 Ex. Rep. 329).

FIELD, J., held that a plaintiff, when a solicitor, was still entitled to proceed in the High Court, notwithstanding that the amount claimed was lege, as held by Pollock, C.B., in Jones v. Brown, the Judicature Acts and less than £50, and to recover costs on that scale, on the ground of privirules made thereunder not in any way affecting the question.-SOLICITORS, Francis & Johnson; Aaron Wray.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
FINAL EXAMINATION.

Bird, John William Edwin
Bobbett, Lewis Albert
Booth, William Edwin
Bostock, Henry

Bradbury, John Henry
Brady, Christopher
Bridge, Henry Sansum
Bromley, Joseph Walker

Broughton, Charles Edward, B.A.,
LL.B.

Brown, Frederick

The following candidates, whose names are in alphabetical order, were successful at the final examination held on the 14th and 15th of June, 1887:Adams, William Adlington, Jonathan Agnew, Harold, B.A. Aizlewood, Albert Percy Allen, William Edward Alpe, Frederick Anderson, John Armstrong, Richard Auden, Thomas Edward Auty, John Charles Badcock, Frederick Bainbridge, Robert William Balden, Samuel Dinsdale Bantoft, Guy Cyril Barlow, Richard Llewellyn Barlow, Thomas Marriott Bartlett, Edward Henry Hewitt Bartlett, George Batley, Ralph Cecil, B.A., LL.B. Beaumont, Henry Beaver, Frederick Becher, Howard Percy Bell, Edward Albert Bentley, John Henry Benjamin, Arthur Joseph Berridge, Samuel Morpott

Burkingyoung, Charles Edmund Burnett, Robert Oldham, B.A., LL.B.

Burrell, Robert

Campion, Harold Gilmore

Campion, John Todd

Canning, Philip Lovel Hampden

Cartwright, Sydney

Cavell, Harry St. John

Chancellor, Walter Egerton

Chapman, Frederick William

Charsley, Arthur Edmund Webster

Chevalier, Arthur Edward

Chinn, Richard

Christie, Philip Rider, B.A.

* We have been furnished by a correspondent with a note of this decision.

Clapham, Herbert
Clarke, James

Clench, Sidney Augustus
Clifton, Harvey

Close, Charles John Ward
Cobb, Thomas Hugh
Colbeck, Haggitt

Coleclough, William Herbert
Comerford, Hugh

Cook, Walter Ainsworth

Coombs, Richard Samuel Gurney
Coren, John William

Coulman,

Edward

Court, William Henry

Cowan, Thomas Galloway

Crocker, William

Crow, John Henry

Crowe, Edmund George

Currey, Harry Erskine, B. A.

Cust, Robert Henry Hobart, M.A.

Dabbs, Arthur Henry

Dale, Richard Reuben

Davies, Robert Walker, B A.

Dawson, Albert Edward
Dawson, Percy

Denman, William
Dennis, John Herbert
Dewing, Maurice

Dixon, Albert Edward

Dixon, Herbert Griffith
Dixon, James

Docker, George Dudley
Druitt, John

Duke, William Griffiths

Dunkerly, Charles William
Dwyer, Frank

Earle, Francis George
East, Frederick John
Eastley, Thomas Beckley
Ellaby, Arthur James
Emanuel, Arthur Henry
Emsley, Robert Garside
Evans, Samuel David, B.A.
Evelyn, Edward Clement
Evershed, Herbert Evans
Fardell, John

Farrar, Joseph Barraclough
Fernihough, George
Fernyhough, Samuel

Ferrington, George William
Finch, Heneage John

Firth, Thomas Williams Staple

Fischer, Max Temple, B.A.

Floyer, Sydenham Ernest

Follett, Walter George

Foster, Walter Henry, LL.B.
Fowler, Archibald Robert

Francis, Earley Christopher, B.A.
Freeman, Arthur

French, John William

Gabb, Richard Frederick Baker
Gaby, Ralph Hale, B.A
Gallaher, Thomas Henry
Gardiner, George Charles
Gardner, Robert Henry
Gascoigne, Walter

Gaskell, Thomas Frederick
Gatty, William Henry Carzer
Ginn, Thomas William
Glasgow, Richard Pike
Gordon, Eric

Grindrod, John Townley, M.A.
Guscotte, Leonard John'
Hale, David, B.A.

Halliday, James

Hammond, Albert Victor

Harcourt, Clarence

Harland, Cecil, B.A.

Harris, Charles Benjamin

Hastings, Henry Augustus Ward
Haywood, Joseph

Heap, Henry

Heap, John Edward

Heaton, Guy, B.A.

Henry, James Jocelyn Coghill
Hebertson, Robert Elliott
Hewison, Arthur Edward
Higgins, Alexander Pearce
Hind, Everatt

Hodgkinson, Edward Dixon
Hodgson, Henry
Hollowell, Alfred
Holmes, Frank Henry

Horne, Benjamin William
Hughes, Thomas, B.A
Jackman, James Croome
Jacobs, Isaac Frederick
James, Ebor Riley
James, Willam Charles
Jarratt, William Otley
Jelf, Henry John
Jones, Alfred Lewis

Jones, Douglas Hurst, M.A.
Jones, John Piers Lloyd
Jones, Robert Bertram
Kent, James George
Kerr, Francis James

Kite, Ernest Acton

Knight, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, Joseph Edward
Lane, Horace Houlton

Latham, Charles Frederick Grafton
Lawton, James Hadfield
Leach, Ralph Cecil
Lear, Arthur James

Leavers, Herbert Fothergill
Lee, Francis Edward

Lewis, Francis Ball, B.A.
Lewis, Fred Lawson
Lewis, George Herbert
Lewis, George Hilton
Leyshon, William Thomas
Lightfoot, Ernest William
Lilley, George Trice

Lingard, Frank Chorlton, B.A
Litchfield, Herbert

Livingston, John Alexander
Locke, Frederick Robert
Lockwood, Arthur Carden
Longland, Josiah
Lucas, Edward

Lucas, William Bernard
Mackay, Josiah Kipping
Maggs, Edwin John Quintius
Markham, Christopher Alexander
Matthews, Marmaduke Capper, B.A
Maudesley, Laurence Long
Meredith, Walter William
Michelmore, Henry William
Mitchell, Harry
Monks, Hugh Samuel

Moore, Charles Edward Arthur
Mullock, Richard Arthur
Munro, Glanville Deios May
Nesbitt, Thomas Thorburn
Neve, William
Nichols, John

Norris, Charles Herbert
Nunn, Edward Westby
Nursaw, Thomas
Ogden, Francis

Oldham, James Bertram, B.A.
Orfeur, Norman

Palmer, Thomas Joseph Mills
Parker, Alan Montague
Parkes, Francis

Parkyn, Alfred Howard
Pauli, Henry John
Pearce, James Alfred

Phillips, Cleaveland John
Phillips, Frank
Phillips, James

Pierce, Ernest Wilson
Pillers, Ernest James
Pilling, Albert Bamford
Pinniger, Thomas Clare

Pollard, John Empson Toplis
Pollock, Charles Frederick
Poole, Francis Joseph
Preston, Sydney Elliott
Price, Walter Jones

Pritchard, Arthur Ernest Guy
Ralph, Richard Christian
Rawlings, Frank, B.A.
Rawlinson, Charles William
Rawsthorn John James
Rayner, Wilfred

Russell, William

Sanderson, Stephen Goodman
Scales, William Johnston
Scholefield, Joshua
Sear, Merton Lane
Sharp, John Joseph
Sheppard, George
Simonds, John Edward
Simpson, John Percy, B.A.
Sinclair, Norman Macleod, B.A.
Sixsmith, Richard Massey
Smith, Charles Barnby
Smith, Francis George
Smith, Harold Seton
Smith, Henry

Smith, Hugh Hippisley Ayscough
Smith, Robert Tweedy
Snelling, Percy William
Soames, Edgar, B.A., LL.B.
Soares, Ernest José, B.A., LL.B.
Spackman, Bertram Jchn'
Spearman, John Gustard
Spencer, Charles St. David, B.A.
Spencer, John Wilson
Sprigge, Frank Augustus
Stammers, Sidney Joseph Richard
Stansfield, William Ashton
Stapley, Frederick Henry
Steele, Charles Deans

Stockdale, John Henry
Stockton, Oliver James
Stokes, Edward John

Stonehouse, Samuel Emberton

Symonds, Christopher Barker
Swaine, William

Sweet, Arthur Francis
Swinburne, Henry, B.A.

Swinhoe, Rodway Charles John

Tanfield, Arthur George
Taylor, Alfred William

Taylor, Charles Alfred Innes
Thomas, Thomas

Thomson, William Archer
Tomlin, Morton James Baring, B.A
Tottenham, Loftus Dacre, B.A.
Tozer, Edward John Francis
Tratman, Alfred Saunders
Travell, Joseph Jackson
Turnell, Roland

Turner, Richard John
Upton, Charles
Vaughan, Ernest
Walker, John Leonard
Walsh, James Henry

Ware, Christopher Henry, B.A.
Warren, Frederick Arthur
Watson, Harry Crawford
Webb, Edward Hunter
Webb, George Ernest
Webb, William Herbert
Welsh, Frederick Gibson
Whately, Thomas Percival
Whitaker, John Lawrence
White, John
Whytt, David

Williams, Henry James

Williams, Robert

Williams, William Albert

Williamson, Frederick John

Williamson, Walter
Winnall, Charles Pears
Wise, William Henry
Wood, Arthur Herbert
Woodhouse, Victor Harry
Wyson, Ho

INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION.

The following candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the intermediate examination held on the 16th day of June, 1887::

Amphlett, Charles Edward
Ardagh, Russell Drapes

Arkwright, Sidney John, B.A.
Armitage, Henry Allen
Armstrong, Alfred Cameron
Attenborough, Thomas
Barker, William Chalmers
Bedwell, Hugh

Beevor, Rowland

Bennett, Norman
Blackston, Frederick

Bland, Alexander Frederick
Bone, Edward Henry
Bower, Thomas Holme
Braby, Percy

Broadbent, Benjamin
Brooks, Frederic
Carr, George Frederick
Case, Robert Henry
Caunce, John Caunce Linney
Chamberlin, Alfred Ernest William
Chapman, Henry William

Charnley, William Stewart George
Chilton, Stanley
Clode, Tracy Percy
Collis, Frank Neild
Cooper, Thomas
Creeke, Herbert Buck
Cronin, Arthur Knox
Cullen, Alfred Joseph
Dauney, Arthur William
Davies, Albert Orlando
Davies, Charles Frederick
Davies, Edward William
Davies, Herbert Maddock
Davies, Willie Arthur

Deeley, Harry Mallaby, B.A., LL.B.
Dent, Ernest Freshfield, B.A.
Drinkwater, George Frederick
Eaton-Evans, William George

Richardson, Harry Leo Sidney, B.A., Ellis, Sydney James

LL.B.

Ridley, Henry Douglas
Rigby, George Deacon

Riley, George Marvell, B.A.
Robinson, Edward
Roche, Charles Hubert

Roll, Hugh Winfield, B.A.
Rorke, George Samuel

Fearon, John Francis
Fovargue, Henry West
Fowle, James Rogers George
Fox, Robert Floud, B.A.
Fryer, Charles Arthur
Govett, Lionel Arthur, B.A.
Gregory, Herbert Edward
Gribble, Alfred Wingyett

Habgood, Robert Tanner

Hanna, Robert Henry Waterloo
Harding, Lansdown

Harling, Allan Owen

Harris, Harry Leonard

Hartley, Charles Edward

Hawes, Charles Edward

Hawley, George

Hay-Chapman, Francis Frederick
Angustein

Henderson, Arthur

Henderson, William

Herrtage, Alfred Robert

Hewitt, Edgar

Holbrook, William John

Holland, William Thomas, B.A.
Hollinshead, Hubert Rowson
Holt, Herbert James Whittell
Houchen, Alan Willis
Howard, Francis Stuart
Howell, Ernest Albert
Hughes, Arthur

Hunt, Edward Frederick
Hutchen, William
Jolly, Lewis, B.A.
Jones, Griffith

Jones, John David Valentine
Knowles, Frederic
Lee, Charles William
Legge, Robert Oliver
Lewis, Lionel Smithett
Liddle, George James

Lowden, Charles Edwin Stuart

Lowe, John Henry

Lush, Herbert

Marks, James Jones
Martin, Alan Scott

Mason, Barry Willicombe
Mason, Herbert

Menicraft, Richard Hankinson
Monks, John Thomas
Moore, Robert

Myatt, Herbert William
Myers, Solomon

Mylchreest, Claude Wathew

Nixon, Charles Wyril

Noble, Ernest William
Pearce, William

Pearson, Edward Francis Sidney

Phillips, Llewellyn

Pollock, Adrian Donald Wilde
Poole, Harry

Powell, Walter Rice
Quilliam, Joseph
Rabbitt, Harry

Rankin, Arthur Joseph Burder
Ransom, Edward

Redgate, William Herbert
Reynolds, Bernard Lias
Reynolds, Richard Benjamin
Richards, Joseph Frederick
Richardson, Bertram Ivor
Riddick, James Ormston
Ride, Thomas

Ritson, Thomas Youdale
Roberts, Robert Arthur
Rodgers, William Alexander
Rose, Herbert Watkin
Russell, Arthur Llewellyn
Schweder, Albert Julius, B.A.
Scott, Charles Edward
Scott, George Sydney
Simmons, Graham, B.A.
Simpson, Joseph Thornton
Smith, Harry Opie
Smith, Horace Augustus
Southwell, Harry Glanville
Sprake, David Lewis
Stafford, Stephen Goddard

Stephens, James
Stevens, Francis Hewitt
Strangwayes, Thomas Edward
Strouts, Harry Frederick
Swainson, George Francis
Tattersall, Henry Percy
Taylor, John

Thomas, Evan Jenkyn
Tilling, Walter James
Todd, Griffith Samuel
Tozer, Edgar Mater
Tremearne, Eustace Sewallis Shirley
Turner, Christopher John, B.A.
Varey, Francis Challender
Walford, Herbert Nevill, B.A.
Ward, Ernest

Ward, James Michael
Watson, Ernest Ivens
Watson, George

Wattson, William Beaven

Weddell, Alexander George, B.A.
Weeks, Herbert Arthur
Wellington, James

Westwell, Benjamin Thomas
Whichcord, Julian

Wickes, Charles Hamilton
Wilford, John Charles
Williamson, Edwin Frederick
Wilson, Harry

A HISTORY OF SOLICITORS AND ATTORNEYS. BY FREDERICK E. SAWYER, F.S. A., of Brighton. (Continued from page 596.)

(e) The Incorporated Law Society: its History and Growth. The early history of our society is so fully described in the first annual calendar (for 1882) that I need not repeat the details. It was founded in 1827 and incorporated in 1831 as "The Society of Attorneys, Solicitors, Proctors, and others not being Barristers, practising in the Courts of Law and Equity of the United Kingdom." It is, of course, quite unnecessary for me to mention the special functions of the society in reference to our profession generally, but I may observe that it is virtually an inn of court (or chancery) in the control it excrcises, whilst possessing far more complete (and statutory) powers. It has been suggested that membership of our society should be rendered compulsory, but this seems an impossibility, as it is a purely voluntary association, like the inns of court and chancery. The valuable work done by the society is not half appreciated by the members of our be increased tenfold. One of the most valuable branches of the society's profession, and, by giving it their firm support generally, its utility might work has been in initiating and altering legislation. When we reflect how a body of middle-aged gentlemen, almost wholly ignorant of law, and possessing no legal training, set to work annually to tinker up the laws of this important realm, the wonder is how we are still able to exist. It is, therefore, of the greatest public benefit that our society should intervene, and that those who will have to administer the law should offer their suggestions as to its modification. This will, no doubt, in future form one of the most important tasks of our society.

of these is desirable.

(f) Provincial Law Societies.-These preceded the formation of our own society; thus the Yorkshire Society was founded in 1786; the Somersetshire Society in 1796; the Leeds Society in 1805, &c.* Of course, a brief history 5. Education and Training-(a) Examination.-There seems to be no doubt that our profession has taken the lead amongst the learned professions in requiring an examination from its members for more than half a century, whilst the medical profession has only required one since 1858, and it is quite recently that officers in our army and navy have been obliged to pass examinations, and barristers have only very lately had to pass any examination. The Incorporated Law Society in 1836 induced the judges to make rules of court requiring those applying for admission as attorneys to pass an examination, and the Solicitors Act, 1843, confirmed and extended the rules, and in 1860 the society secured the passing of an Act (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127) requiring preliminary and intermediate examinations in addition to the (b) Articles. I have already mentioned the Act 3 Jac. 1, c. 7, which required attorneys to have been "brought up" in the courts, but it is not quite clear when articles of clerkship were first in use. We find, however, a rule of court in 1654 that persons applying to be admitted as attorneys must have "served five years as clerk to some judge, serjeant-at-law, counsellor, attorney, or officer of one of the courts at Westminster, unless his master had given over practice." The Act 2 Geo. 2, c. 23 rendered articles compulsory, and a "Register of Articles of Clerkship" from 1749 to 1837 will be found at the Public Record Office, and also twenty-three bagst of affidavits of execution of articles of clerkship" from 1775 to 1832, the hutter being required by the Act 34 Geo. 3, c. 14, which directed the enrolment of all articles.

final.

(c) Connection with the Inns of Court and Chancery.-Up to the year 1600

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

there appears to have been no rule against attorneys being members of the inns of court, and the fact that a rule for their exclusion was necessary shews that at that time they must to some extent have been members of the inns. Between 1600 and 1640 various orders were made that "common attorneys and solicitors who are but ministerial persons of an inferior nature [mark the phrase!] should be prevented from being members of any of the inns of court. The rules also went on to provide that any barrister who practised as an attorney or solicitor should be disbarred. The records of Barnard's-inn shew an order in 1629 for "Mr. Harvey, late student of that house, to give up his chambers as he practised as an attorney." Rules of court in 1654 and 1704 (which I have before quoted) required every attorney to be admitted of some inn of court or chancery, and, if it be true that these are (as they contend) purely voluntary societies, it is difficult to see what power the judges had to make such rules. There is a qualification in a rule of 4 Anne, in reference to the inns of court, "if those honourable societies will admit them." It is doubtful whether these rules were ever thoroughly enforced, but from the beginning of the present century, the inns of court have zealously excluded attorneys and their clerks. The whole subject was considered in 1836 in the case of The King v. The Principal and Antients of Barnard's-inn,t being an application by William Gresham, attorney and solicitor, for a mandamus to compel them to admit him to that society. In support of his case several orders were quoted of the reign of Elizabeth and James I., empowering the inns of court to regulate the inns of chancery, and specially an order of 15th April, 6 Car. I., referring to attorneys "being of the inns of chancery." He had first appealed to Gray's-inn as the visitor of Barnard's-inn, but the former Inn decided they had no power to interfere. The court refused to grant the mandamus. somewhat similar case was The King v. The Benchers of Gray's-inn, in which it was decided that the inns of court were not bodies corporate, and therefore there was no one to whom a writ could be directed. § In the case of The King v. All n, in 1834, a mandamus was refused to direct the principal of Clifford's-inn to attend before the benchers of the Inner Temple, there being no sufficient proof that they had this authority.||

A

(d) History of the Inns of Chancery.-It will be necessary to carefully collect the history of the inns of chancery so far as they related to attorneys and solicitors. Each inn of court had its own inns of chancery, yearly receiving from them the pupils who had qualified themselves for promotion to the status of inns of court men, and higher fees were charged to students coming to an inn of court from inns not under its control.

Temple: Clifford's-inn, Lyon's-inn, and Clement's-inn. Middle Temple: NewThe inns of court, with their dependent inns of chancery, were:-Inner inn. Lincoln's-inn: Furnival's-inn and Thaives'-inn. Gray's-inn: Barnard'sinn and Staple's-inn. New-inn took the place of Strand-inn (or Chester-inn), pulled down on the building of Somerset House. Much information will be found in Sir William Dugdale's Origines Judiciales (folio, 1671); also C. G. Antiquities of the Inns of Court (8vo, 1804), &c.; also in Walter Thornbury Addison's History of the Knights Templars (4to, 1842); W. Herbert's excellent history of Barnard's-inn has lately appeared in Notes and Queries.¶ & Edward Walford's Old and New London (vols. i., ii., and iii.); whilst an 6. Growth of Profession-(a) Litigation.It is not necessary to say much on this point beyond observing that it does not now occupy so much of the whereas the preparation of deeds was formerly the work of conveyancers, it attention of solicitors as formerly. (b) Conveyancing.-In this branch a great change has taken place, for is now generally done by solicitors. We read in Bacon's Abridgment (tit. SLANDER) that "It is not slander to say of an attorney he made false writings, because it is not his business to make writings." This would London solicitors are, I am told, still much not, however, be good law now. too fond of running to counsel to prepare simple deeds which they ought

themselves to know how to draw.

(e) Solicitors and General Business.-The public convenience is found to be well served by greatly extending the scope of a solicitor's duties so as to make him the confidential adviser on all family, legal, and business matters, the usual medium for winding up estates; and it seems possible that the entire management of all dealings with land and houses may be in future (and I think should be) intrusted to the profession. Wills are now usually prepared by solicitors, though it appears this was formerly done by schoolNorthern Circuit, "the first toast after The King' was The Schoolmaster,' masters; and Lord Eldon observed that, in his younger days, when on the who in those days made wills, and so furnished frequent employment to the lawyers!" We might well (I think) in the present day toast the makers of printed sixpenny forms of wills, which cause infinite grief and litigation. (d) Statistical. I had hoped to be able to furnish some statistics as to the growth of our profession during the present century, but on application to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, I am informed that schedules are filled up by the heads of families, whose account of their it is impossible to supply any trustworthy information, for the census occupations is unsatisfactory, as there is a certain general tendency in all bricklayer's labourer' likes to call himself a bricklayer,' and a 'journeyclasses of society to magnify their position and calling. For instance, a

man baker' a 'baker.' So a retail shopkeeper' is apt to describe himself as a 'merchant,' and in like manner a 'solicitor's clerk' as a 'solicitor.' Under these circumstances, therefore, the classifications of occupations for the purpose of the Census Report does not admit of the possibility of satisfactorily distinguishing'solicitors' from Further than this, many men are described as 'lawyer,' making it impossible 'solicitors' clerks,' much less articled clerks' from ordinary clerks.' to separate even barristers' from 'solicitors,' who are therefore returned under one heading in the classification of occupations in the Census Report."

6

[blocks in formation]

It is stated that in the reign of Edward III. the number of attorneys in all England was under 400, and the number practising in 1872 was said to be 13,824.* The number of annual certificates issued by the Registrar in 1881 was 12,594. (e) Abolition of Special Courts, Proctors, &c.-During the present reign many courts with special and peculiar jurisdictions and practitioners have been abolished or altered so as to throw them open to the entire profession, whilst new courts have been established. These will all require historical notice. We may mention the Marshalsea Court; ecclesiastical jurisdiction in probate and divorce; the abolition of proctors; local small debt courts; county courts; the Bankruptcy Court, &c. In many cases the intervention of our society has secured us valuable rights of audience, &c.

(f) General Growth.-The general facilities afforded for the transaction of business by the innumerable law reforms during the present reign, together with a reduction of the difficulties and cost of litigation and conveyancing, have resulted in a large increase of legal business, and there is no reason for supposing that the endless complications necessarily arising out of our present high state of civilization will ever render it possible for the public to dispense with the assistance of well-trained legal advisers, although in moments of temporary irritation they may "want to do without 'em."

7. Taxation and Stamp Duties-(a & b) Articles of Clerkship and Annual Duty. The first Act imposing a duty on articles was the 34 Geo. 3, c. 14, which required a stamp of £120. The amount now payable is, however, £80, and £25 on admission. The annual duty was imposed by the 25 Geo. 3, c. 80, making London solicitors pay £5 yearly, and country solicitors £3. This has since been altered to £9 for the former and £6 for the latter, though solicitors not admitted three years get a reduction of £3. I have made the following calculation as to the approximate amount thus yearly paid by our profession, basing it on the figures given in the society's balance-sheet

for 1881:

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

What the State does for us in return for this large sum I must leave the historian of our profession to discover. The number of annual certificates issued in the following years were :1880... 12,688 1886... 13,901

...

9,511

1860 ... 10,229 1870 10,576

...

1843 1850 18,127 The number of articles of clerkship registered in the following years were 1870... 905 1880 1,226 1886 ... 924 8. Relation to the Bar.—This branch of the subject will require careful study. It appears that in former times it was customary for barristers to advise with out the intervention of attorneys. Thus we find in the diary of Anthony Stapley (a Sussex gentleman): 1736, April 27th, John Scutt and myself went to Counsellor Shelley's for his opinion about a recovery, and he told me I might do it myself, and I gave him £1 1s. for his fee." t The members of the bar have always regarded solicitors and attorneys somewhat cornfully, and I have already quoted the seventeenth century rule, describing us as "ministerial persons of an inferior nature." The satirist of modern days was not much exaggerating when he described the briefless barrister as falling in love with a rich attorney's elderly ugly daughter," and afterwards jilting her when he became prosperous. It has often been observed how barristers on attaining high judicial offices endeavour to obtain popular support by attacking solicitors and their privileges, whilst zealously supporting their own order. seems to be no reason (beyond professional jealousy) why solicitors of experience should not be allowed to fill many offices of a semi-judicial character, now entirely monopolized by barristers.

66

There

9. Privileges.-There is an old story of a captain in the Royal Navy who was ordered when cruising in remote parts to send home reports on the manners and customs of the countries he visited. Of one nation he gave this terse report: "Manners they have none, and their customs are beastly." And we may truly say of our own profession : "Privileges we have none, but our disabilities are beastly." We are termed "gentlemen by Act of Parliament," though I have failed to discover any Act giving this title. Attorneys formerly had the right to be sued only in their own court, but this is now abolished with the union of all the higher courts.

10. Disabilities.-The heavy taxation to which we are subject has already been mentioned. The Incorporated Law Society has done much to help in the removal of disabilities, and a careful perusal of the society's reports will shew what has been done, though, I fear, the work of the society is not half enough known or appreciated as it should be by the profession generally. I may mention one curious disability which formerly existed. attorney was a defendant to an action and did not appear, the plaintiff might sign a forejudger enabling him to strike the defendant off the roll, and then he could be sued as a common person (Statute 2 Hen. 4, c. 8). On making satisfaction to the plaintiff, an attorney so forejudged might be restored. §

When an

11. Local Courts and Rolls.-Special attorneys formerly practised in the Courts of the Counties Palatine of Chester, Lancaster, and Durham, and also the Court of Great Sessions of Wales. I am informed by the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records that the rolls of all these courts have been deposited in the Public Record Office, but they do not appear yet to be indexed or catalogued. I am indebted to Mr. Alfred Oxnard Smith, Registrar of the Court of Chancery, Durham, for the following notes: "The whole of the records of this court (including the roll of attorneys) were removed to the Public Record + Suss. Arch, Coll. xxiii. 69. Tomlin's Law Dict. (3rd edit.).

*Haydn's Dictionary of Dates (17th edit.).
See also Calendar 1882, pp. 28 and 29, et seq.

Office in 1868. There is in my possession a roll dating from 1843, which, however, contains comparatively few enrolments, the practice of being separately admitted a solicitor of the County Palatine being now quite obsolete. I am unable to say when attorneys of the County Palatine were first instituted, but presume it would be about the same time as the institution of attorneys of the courts at Westminster. The latter could at any time be admitted attorneys of the County Palatine upon signing the roll. | The palatinate attorneys required separate admission at Westminster in order to practise in the courts there." The history of these courts should be collected. Some brief particulars of the "Great Sessions of Wales," which appear to have been principally established by Henry VIII., will be found in Tomlin's Law Dictionary.

*

12. Offices held by Solicitors.-Pulling mentions five-viz., clerk of peace, undersheriff, clerk to justices, vestry clerk, and clerk to board of guardians. He does not mention town clerk or coroner. There seems, however, to be nothing making solicitors exclusively eligible to these offices. 13. Vocations connected with Solicitors.-Pulling again mentions five-viz., conveyancer, scrivener, notary, proctor, and Parliamentary agent, but these are now to a great extent followed by solicitors.

14. List of Admissions.—I am hopeful that it may be possible to compile (and perhaps publish) a complete list of attorneys and solicitors from earliest times. Even if the rolls, prior to 1729, are hopelessly lost, other records might help to make a list, and particularly the registers of the Inns of Courts and chancery.

15. Biographical and Genealogical.-This is an important branch of the subject, and likely to prove of general interest. Biographies, pedigrees, &c., can be obtained, and we shall perhaps find that many lawyers of great eminence are descended from attorneys or solicitors. We shall, of course, require to know what members of our profession have been distinguished in the paths of poetry, art, science, literature, or archæology. Lord Campbell, I believe, laboured to stamp Shakespeare as an attorney's clerk. †

16. General History.-Careful search in contemporary literature appears very desirable, so as to ascertain the status of our profession at various periods, and any special habits and customs of its members, and the calendars of State papers will now yield much useful information. The causes of the unpopularity of the profession must, of course, be examined, and the historian will determine whether it is due to the "Law being a terror to evil-doers" (a numerous body), or to the proverbial fate of those " who interpose in quarrels," or to a general spirit of parsimony or meanness.

17. Collection of Materials--(a) Bibliography.-Information on all the heads already mentioned requires collecting, and the compilation of a bibliography of the subject is most desirable, and I trust that it will be found possible to make a collection of satires, poems, and caricatures relating to the profession. The whole work can be most conveniently undertaken by the society, and when the necessary materials are obtained, I hope we shall get a good history. Lastly, my thanks are due to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Registrar-General, the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records, Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Q.C., Mr. A. O. Smith, and particularly to Mr. T. Lane for their kind help in the preparation of this paper, which, though somewhat long, I hope may be found not unprofitable,

LORD COLERIDGE ON THE PROPOSED ORDER IN

COUNCIL RELATING TO CIRCUITS.

LORD COLERIDGE has addressed the following letter to the Lord Chancellor:-Royal Courts of Justice, June 21, 1887.-My dear Lord Chanmay occur to me as to the proposed Order in Council relating to the cellor,-You are good enough to desire me to make any observations which appointed to draw up the scheme for altering the circuits; nor was I a circuits. As you are aware, I was not present when the committee was member of, nor in any way consulted by, the committee which drew it up. I am not, therefore, objecting to anything which I ought to accept. I never saw it until it was complete, and, as you know, I at once objected to it. My objections, I am sorry to say, remain, and they are threefold. First, I object to the scheme as altogether and unnecessarily revolutionary. It almost, except in the instances of the Northern and North-Eastern Circuits, destroys the circuit system. What has maintained that system, as we know, has been the civil business. For criminal business only a set of able and competent men will not leave London and go round the circuits; and I feel sure that to destroy such places as Winchester and Lewes, for example, and force all the civil suitors within seventy or eighty miles of London (as the scheme does) to come for justice to the Strand, will destroy almost entirely the circuits which at present are concerned with such business. It is not an affair only or even chiefly of the profession. Important as, in my view, the profession is, it must, of course, yield if it interferes with the general good. But in this case the suitors will suffer grievously; and certainly the strong remonstrances which have reached me from places (such as Brighton) not assize towns affected by the proposed change convince me that my objections are largely and widely shared. Next, I object to doing what is proposed by Order in Council. You have, no doubt, fully considered the objections of Field, J., and four other judges to the course proposed when it was contemplated, I believe, by Lord Cairns some years ago. If you feel sure there is nothing in those objections and that the thing can be done, I will not dispute the matter with you. I remain of opinion that it cannot. But, whether it can or no, I feel very strongly that it ought not. The clauses of the Judicature Act *Summary of the Law and Practice relating to Attorneys General and Special (3rd edit.). + Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements considered by John, Lord Campbell, in a letter to John Payne Collier, Esq. (London: Murray, 1859.)

I

referred to in the proposed order I am confident were never intended to authorize so sweeping and so various a change. Lord Selborne is away and Sir George Jessel is dead. I remain the only other official who conducted the first Judicature Act through Parliament. For centuries, under the authority of two old Acts of Parliament, every county in England has had civil assizes twice a year. In thirty-four counties, I think, civil assizes are absolutely abolished; in others they are reduced to one. cannot think this ought to be done by a majority of the judges and the Lord Chancellor (I speak practically) without any consultation of the counties to be affected, and apart from the votes of their representatives in the House of Commons. All magistrates and various other officials have, for a very long period of time, had the right to have actions brought against them for acts done in their office tried in their own counties. This is a right resting on statute. By Order in Council it is proposed absolutely to abolish all this in 34 counties, and seriously to affect it in others. I must think that privileges expressly created by Parliament ought not to be taken away without Parliament being first consulted. The enactment that anything inconsistent with the Judicature Acts is to be taken to be repealed will hardly bear the strain put upon it, first, of altering the circuit system so as, in fact, to abolish it, and, next, of destroying important Parliamentary privileges involved in the circuit system, and, I take leave to say, never in the contemplation of Parliament as liable to be repealed by the passing of the Judicature Acts. I am sure that we in the House of Commons never dreamed of such a consequence following from the general provision above referred to.

These are my objections to the proposed scheme as a whole, and to the mode of giving effect to it. In detail-which is my third head of objection-there is much to be said. You have probably received, as I have, strong remonstrances from Brighton and other corporations against the abolition of Lewes as a civil assize town. I have also received very strong remonstrances from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight against the like abolition of Winchester. I enclose you a paper, well-reasoned, I think, and signed by all the leading members, Queen's counsel and others, of the Western Circuit pointing out the practical hardships and inconveniences of this abolition. These are but specimens of other strong protests which have reached me from other quarters. If Parliament passses the scheme, of course we have no more to say; but it seems a little strong to pass so serious a measure, interfering with so many rights and interests, really by a majority of the judges only. It is to my mind no real answer to say that it must lie on the tables of the Houses before it becomes law, and that they may address the Crown against it. Of course they may; but it is a very different thing to reject a whole scheme by address-as must be done if it is to be rejected-and to amend a scheme in committee when the scheme is part of a Bill in Parliament. The power of the Government is generally sufficient in both Houses to carry a scheme in block, whereas if it had to be debated in detail the most powerful Government is obliged to give and take.

I have expressed my objections to the scheme; but I do not wish to be thought desirous of standing on the present system without any alteration. Except in Yorkshire and Lancashire and a few other counties, I quite agree with the authors of the scheme in thinking that three assizes in the year are abundantly sufficient. I think some system of grouping not so trenchant as the one proposed by the scheme, and so arranged as to give every county or almost every county one civil assize in the year, would be unobjectionable. I think the abolition of grouping for criminal business perfectly right. I was chairman of a committee which strongly recommended this to Lord Cairns many years ago, and I am very glad to find our opinions entertained by so powerful a body as the judges. I am sure that the scheme has been most carefully and ably worked out. But I object to it as a whole; to some details of it, and to the method of carrying it into effect, for the reasons which I have given. They are very hastily and imperfectly expressed, but time presses. I hope you will not object to my making this letter public if I should think it useful to do so.-Yours always very sincerely, COLERIDGE.

Let me add that I object also strongly to the Easter Circuit, as going back to the bad practice of disregarding the time when everyone else keeps holiday, and as destroying for nine times out of ten for judges, the bar, the solicitors, suitors, and everyone engaged in litigation, the whole of

the Easter Vacation,

LEGAL NEWS.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. ERNEST BAGGALLAY, Q.C., M.P., who has been appointed Stipendiary Magistrate for the borough of West Ham in succession to the late Mr. John Roland Phillips, is the third son of the Right Hon. Sir Richard Baggallay, late judge of the Court of Appeal, and was born in 1850. He was educated at Marlborough College and at Caius College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1873, and he is a member of the South-Eastern Circuit. He was for a short time a revising barrister. He was secretary to the Boston Election Commission in 1875, and to the Sandwich Election Commission in 1880. He is one of the prosecuting counsel to the Post Office at the Central Criminal Court, and he has been M. P. for the Brixton Division of Lambeth in the Conservative interest since November, 1885.

Sir CHARES PACKER, Chief Justice of Barbadoes, has been appointed a Member of the Executive Council of that island. Sir C. Packer is the third son of Mr. John Culling Packer, of Barbadoes, and was born in 1816. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he gradu

ated as a junior optime in 1839, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1841. He became Solicitor-General of Barbadoes in 1847, Speaker of the General Assembly in 1861, and Chief Justice and Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court in 1874. He received the honour of knighthood in 1879.

Serjeant PETER O'BRIEN, who has been appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland, in succession to Mr. John George Gibson, Q.C., M.P., who has been appointed Attorney-General for Ireland, was called to the bar at Dublin in 1865. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1880, and a serjeantat-law in 1885. He is a member of the Munster Circuit.

Mr. JOHN ATKINSON, Q.C., has been appointed a Prosecuting Counsel for the County and City of Dublin, in succession to Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, who has been appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland. Mr. Atkinson was called to the bar at Dublin in 1865, and he became a Queen's Counsel in 1880. He practises on the Munster Circuit.

Mr. EDWIN FORBES JEFFRIES, solicitor (of the firm of Wartnaby, Gilbert, & Jeffries), of Market Harborough, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAM LUSH WILSON, barrister, has been appointed a Magistrate for Herefordshire. Mr. Wilson is the second son of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Lush, a judge of the Court of Appeal. He was born in 1850, and he assumed the additional name of Wilson by Royal licence. He was educated at Westminster and at Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1873, and he is a member of the South-Eastern Circuit.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

JOHN RICHARD BLOXHAM and JOHN CHARLES BLOXHAM, solicitors (Bloxham & Son), 6, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. June 30. The said John Charles Bloxham having retired from practice in Birmingham. GEORGE WINCH and JAMES ARTHUR TRASK, Solicitors (Winch & Trask), Chatham. June 30. [Gazette, July 5.

GENERAL,

The Albany Law Journal says that Mr. David Dudley Field, at the age of eighty-two, sails for Europe to attend a convention of the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, to be held at the Guildhall, London, on the 25th of July.

At the conclusion of the county business at the Sussex Sessions at Lewes on the 27th ult., a presentation was made to Mr. G. B. Gregory, who for many years represented East Sussex in Parliament of a silvergilt cup, bearing a suitable inscription, and subscribed for by Mr. Gregory's former constituents.

A correspondent of the American Law Review calls attention to the following heading in the index to "Beach on Contributory Negligence":"Darkie-stealing chickens by a." We think that investigation of the indices to some recent English law books might be commended to this correspondent.

The "Maske of Flowers" was produced, "in celebration of the Jubilee,' at Gray's-inn Hall on Thursday afternoon, in the presence of the Duke and Duchess of Connaught, Princess Louise, and the Duchess of Teck. The Bar Musical Society supplied the orchestra, Mr. Prendergast conducting. The morris dance and minuet were encored.

The Montreal Legal News says that the Supreme Court of the United States is about to adjourn for the summer with over a thousand cases unheard. Between three and four hundred cases are disposed of annually, so that there is work enough on hand for three years at least, and cases put on the roll now will have to take their turn at the end of that time.

On Tuesday the Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, the Truro Bishopric and Chapter Acts Amendment Bill, Pensions (Colonial Services) Bill, Hyde-park Corner (Street Maintenance) Bill, and about forty railway, local government provisional orders, tramways, water, pier, harbour,

and other Bills.

The Manchester Courier announces the death of Mr. Samuel Millner Barton, clerk to the Manchester city justices, which took place rather suddenly on Tuesday afternoon. Mr. Barton was admitted a solicitor in 1846, and for upwards of thirty years acted as assistant clerk to the magistrates at the City Police Court under his brother-in-law, the late Mr. T. Higson. On the death of Mr. Higson, some five years ago, Mr. Barton was promoted to the post of clerk.

On the 30th ult., in the House of Lords, Lord Coleridge moved-" That this House should direct its judgments to be formally notified to the Divisions of the High Court of Justice and to the Court of Appeal which may be affected thereby." He said that the House of Lords had no power to enforce its own decrees, and that the parties were put to the unnecessary expense of making a motion in the court below in order to have the judgment of the House carried into effect. The Lord Chancellor expressed his entire approval of the object of the noble and learned lord in making this motion, and it was agreed to.

In the House of Commons this week, Mr. G. O. Morgan asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could hold out any hope that a Bill dealing with colonial judgments and kindred subjects upon the lines approved at the recent Colonial Conference would be introduced by

« PreviousContinue »